southern minnesota beet sugar cooperative - smbsc · we wish to give thanks to the following...

1

Southern Minnesota BeetSugar Cooperative

2000 AnnualResearch Report

(Complete with hyper-link search capability)

*Article titles in the Table of Contents are actively linked tothe corresponding article for ease of browsing. Just point atthe title in the table of contents and you will be hyper-linkedto the article. Point and click the tab near the title of thearticle and you will be hyper-linked back to the table ofcontents.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page #Acknowledgements 32001 Beet Seed Orders 4SMBSC Official Coded Variety Trial Tables (Combined Data) 5-72000 SMBSC Official Coded Variety Trial Data on diseased ground (Combined Data) 8Disease Nursery Data for Coded Variety Trial Entries 9-12Individual SMBSC Coded Trial Location Data – Commercial (Non-Disease) 13-20Individual SMBSC Coded Trial Location Data – Commerical (Disease) 21-28Individual SMBSC Coded Trial Location Data – Semi Commercial (Non-Disease) 29-36Individual SMBSC Coded Trial Location Data – Semi Commercial (Disease) 37-44Additions, Variations, and Modifications to the Micro-Rate Experiment 45-50Micro-Rate Economics 51-52Micro-Rate Application Timing 53-54Control Options for Eastern Black Nightshade and Other Weed Species 55-56Cover Crop Control Options with Micro-Rate Modifications 57-58Influence of Dual II Magnum Rate and Timing on Sugar Beet Phytotoxicity 59-61 & Weed ControlInfluence of Spring Timing on Dual II Magnum Performance 62-63Economic Viability of Dual or Frontier Weed Control Programs 64-65Economic Viability of Efficacy of Frontier Weed Control Programs 66-67Nitrogen Fertility, Lime, or Manure and Viral Diseases 68-70Nitrogen Fertility on Sandy Soils of the Northern SMBSC Growing Area 71-72Phosphorus Placement and Foliar Micro-Nutrients with Sugar Beet 73-75Variety Repsonses to Cercospora Leafspot Fungicides 76-77Nitrate Soil Test Adjustment for Sugar Beet Growing in Humid Areas of MN 78-85Management of Turkey and Swine Manure Derived Nitrogen in 86-91 A Sugarbeet Cropping SystemCercospora Leaf Spot Control in Eastern North Dakota and Minnesota in 2000 92-1012000 Cercospora Leaf Spot Summary 102-104

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to give thanks to the following growers of Southern Minnesota Beet SugarCooperative for their cooperation of this reasearch effort:

SMSC ReasearchJim AndersonJohn AndersonTom BakkerRoger DuncanBrain FrankBruce FrankDale FrankDan FreiborgRandy FreiborgLoyd KadelbachJim KosakBill LueschenDave McNeilSteve McNeilGreg MertensLeo MertensTodd MertensTerry NobleDoug O’NeilJohn O’NeilTom PalkeLynn PlumleyMarc StevensBob SchjenkenLoren WalterMark WalterRick Wehking

Coded VarietyNorm BoschDoug BoschCorey BoschKent BoschBob CondonClifford FischerBill LueschenTerry NobleChad PayneJan PayneTom PayneBill RudeenCarl RudeenNeil RudeenRick RudeenRick Wehking

Research TechnicanJohn Fischer

Research AssistantRamon Rivera

Research InternSteve O’Neil

Technical assistance wasprovided by Mohamed Khan,Alan Dexter, Carol Windels,Mark Seely, John Lamb,George Rehm, Joe Giles,Dan Humberg, VernHoffman, Larry Smith fromUniversity of Minnesota,North Dakota StateUniverstiy, and South DakotaUniverstiy.

In addition, the assistance othe Agricultural staff isgreatly appreciated:

Lonny BussMark BloomquistPeter CaspersKen DahlReynold HansenMike HoferGreg JohnsonLes PlumleyMike Schjenken

Agriclutural MaintenanceMarvin PreussLeonard DeGreeLarry RoosBill West

EditorsSteve RoehlMark BredehoeftJim WidnerJody SteffelJohn Fischer

Seed was furnished by:

• American Crystal• Aztec• Beta Seed• Maribo• Hilleshog Mono Hy• Holley Seed• Van der Have• Seed Systems

Chemical CompoundsWere Provided by:• Dow AgroSciences• Agtrol• Aventis• BASF• Dupont• Elf Atochem• Rhom and Haas• Syngenta• Sipcam• Prinsburg Farmers

Coop• Cargill• Helena

Click forMain Menu

3

f

2001 BEET SEED ORDERS

Seed Size % of our MarketNon-pelleted 0.8Mini pellets 5.8Regular pellets 40.7Jumbo pellets 34.0Pro 200 18.7

Tachigaren % of our Order45 gram 62.775 gram 4.6 Total 67.3

Top Ten VarietiesBeta 4811 RBeta 3945Beta 6904Beta 6863Beta 4930 RBeta 5815Crystal 309Hilleshog 7057VDH 46109Hilleshog 7073

Rhizomania Resistant Seed40% of the seed order was rhizomania resistant varieties.

Click forMain Menu

4

Table 1. Mean of Three Year Performance Summary of 2001 SMBSC Approved Varieties, 1998-2000.

Entry Rec/T (lbs) Rec/A (lbs) Loss to Mol. Yield (T/A) Sugar % CLS Emergence(%)

Tare (%)

3 yravg

% ofMean

3 yravg

% ofMean

3 yravg

% ofMean

3 yravg

% ofMean

3 yravg

% ofMean

3 yravg

% ofMean

3 yravg

% ofMean

3 yravg

% ofMean

H 309 278.83 96.77 6427.79 97.93 1.22 106.75 23.00 101.49 15.16 97.50 3.99 97.35 56.88 108.88 2.94 91.43ta 2200 blend 287.39 99.75 6991.04 106.52 1.15 100.43 24.12 106.42 15.52 99.78 4.63 113.06 50.08 95.85 2.98 92.48ta 3820 289.41 100.45 6925.46 105.52 1.15 100.44 23.72 104.65 15.62 100.43 4.53 110.62 44.21 84.62 2.51 77.91

Click forMain Menu

ACBeBe

5

Beta 3945 299.47 103.94 6588.40 100.38 1.14 99.19 21.89 96.56 16.11 103.58 4.27 104.19 45.15 86.43 3.12 96.91Beta 5296 286.73 99.52 6126.70 93.35 1.18 102.68 21.34 94.13 15.51 99.75 3.48 85.06 49.53 94.80 3.76 116.90Beta 6863 292.66 101.58 6369.24 97.04 1.11 96.57 21.63 95.44 15.74 101.23 4.49 109.56 50.35 96.38 3.27 101.68Beta 6904 292.62 101.56 6357.83 96.87 1.16 101.52 21.57 95.16 15.79 101.55 4.67 113.96 55.95 107.09 3.58 111.31Beta 5815 SC 293.88 102.00 7027.50 107.07 1.10 96.37 23.90 105.45 15.80 101.60 3.76 91.90 53.15 101.74 3.01 93.53Hilleshog RH5 286.94 99.59 6303.85 96.05 1.10 96.03 21.85 96.39 15.45 99.36 3.56 87.01 3.06 95.05HM 7057 284.52 98.75 6187.71 94.28 1.12 97.73 21.61 95.35 15.35 98.68 3.89 94.99 53.90 103.18 3.65 113.48HM Hector 282.90 98.19 6228.69 94.90 1.18 102.97 21.80 96.19 15.32 98.53 4.60 112.41 61.50 117.72 3.14 97.53Holly Hybrid LM1000 285.91 99.23 6888.62 104.96 1.14 99.77 23.91 105.50 15.44 99.28 3.71 90.68 3.43 106.54Van der Have H46109 284.31 98.68 6900.57 105.14 1.14 99.54 24.31 107.25 15.36 98.75 3.65 89.21 53.99 103.33 3.39 105.26

Mean 288.12 100.00 6563.34 100.00 1.15 100.00 22.67 100.00 15.55 100.00 4.10 100.00 52.24 100.00 3.22 100.00

Approved for last year of sale

HM Resist 276.34 95.91 6144.95 93.63 1.17 102.10 22.09 97.46 14.98 96.32 276.34 6748.02 60.20 115.23 3.23 100.33Seedex SX Laser 275.17 95.51 5937.42 90.46 1.20 104.71 21.59 95.25 14.95 96.12 275.17 6719.45 56.32 107.80 3.35 104.06

SPECIALTY

ACH 9744 APH Specialty 275.26 95.54 5885.81 89.68 1.16 101.22 21.25 93.75 14.93 96.00 4.07 99.39 58.75 112.45 3.80 118.04Beta 4811R RZM & APH 279.51 97.01 6725.75 102.47 1.15 100.35 23.96 105.71 15.13 97.28 4.43 108.18 56.66 108.45 3.05 94.74Hilleshog 7083 RZM Specialty 269.20 93.43 6225.22 94.85 1.25 109.08 23.06 101.74 14.71 94.58 4.63 113.06 0.00 2.86 88.84HM 7073 RZM Specialty 275.98 95.79 5944.89 90.58 1.23 107.33 21.40 94.41 15.02 96.57 4.66 113.79 54.05 103.46 2.93 91.01Van der Have H68108 APH Specialty 266.11 92.36 6505.98 99.13 1.29 112.57 24.35 107.43 14.59 93.81 3.57 87.18 54.12 103.59 2.91 90.39

6

Table 2. Mean of Two Year Performance Summary of 2001 SMBSC Approved Varieties, 1999 - 2000

Entry Rec/T (lbs) Rec/A (lbs) Loss to Mol. Yield (T/A) Sugar % CLS Emergence (%) Tare (%)% of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of

2 yr avg Mean 2 yr avg Mean 2 yr avg Mean 2 yr avg Mean 2 yr avg Mean 2 yr avg Mean 2 yr avg Mean 2 yr avg Mean

2001 APPROVED VARIETIES

ACH 309 282.14 96.48 6667.59 97.74 1.23 105.69 23.62 101.68 15.33 97.15 4.01 98.00 54.25 102.68 3.20 95.00Beta 2200 blend 293.02 100.20 7487.97 109.76 1.18 101.38 25.41 109.36 15.83 100.28 4.61 112.68 50.08 94.77 3.42 101.38Beta 3820 296.36 101.34 7290.11 106.86 1.17 100.52 24.40 105.01 15.98 101.27 4.48 109.62 44.21 83.67 2.56 76.00Beta 3945 306.13 104.68 7058.40 103.46 1.14 97.93 22.95 98.79 16.44 104.18 4.19 102.40 49.23 93.17 3.13 92.77Beta 5296 289.77 99.09 6108.03 89.53 1.17 100.95 21.04 90.55 15.66 99.21 3.47 84.90 56.62 107.15 3.84 113.85Beta 6863 297.84 101.85 6668.34 97.75 1.13 97.06 22.28 95.89 16.02 101.52 4.45 108.88 45.18 85.50 3.42 101.38Beta 6904 299.23 102.32 6792.30 99.56 1.14 98.36 22.59 97.22 16.10 102.03 4.69 114.76 52.05 98.51 3.48 103.16Beta 5815 SC 292.29 99.95 6956.80 101.98 1.14 98.50 23.80 102.46 15.76 99.86 3.77 92.25 53.15 100.60 2.95 87.48Hilleshog RH5 289.32 98.94 6525.62 95.65 1.14 98.43 22.41 96.46 15.61 98.92 3.53 86.25 60.34 114.19 3.35 99.57HM 7057 289.73 99.07 6527.87 95.69 1.15 99.22 22.41 96.45 15.64 99.08 3.88 94.81 56.42 106.78 3.82 113.40HM Hector 290.84 99.45 6688.49 98.04 1.17 100.95 22.80 98.13 15.72 99.59 4.56 111.58 58.54 110.80 3.18 94.40Holly Hybrid LM1000 289.24 98.91 6949.04 101.86 1.16 99.65 23.85 102.65 15.62 98.95 3.83 93.71 3.84 113.85Van der Have H46109 285.74 97.71 6966.09 102.11 1.18 101.38 24.48 105.36 15.46 97.97 3.69 90.17 53.99 102.17 3.63 107.76

MEAN 292.43 100.00 6822.05 100.00 1.16 100.00 23.23 100.00 15.78 100.00 4.09 100.00 52.84 100.00 3.37 100.00

2 YEAR TEST MARKET VARIETIES

ACH 952 APH Spec. 299.22 102.32 7344.34 107.66 1.17 100.61 24.45 105.24 16.13 102.21 4.59 112.19 45.26 85.66 3.03 89.99

SPECIALTY

ACH 9744 APH Specialty 277.81 95.00 6156.79 90.25 1.19 102.67 22.03 94.83 15.08 95.56 4.04 98.85 59.24 112.12 4.28 127.06Beta 4811R RZM & APH 279.25 95.49 6610.63 96.90 1.19 102.67 23.56 101.42 15.16 96.07 4.35 106.44 56.66 107.24 3.38 100.34Beta 4930 RZM & APH 286.30 97.90 6670.23 97.77 1.17 100.95 23.19 99.80 15.49 98.13 4.14 101.18 51.33 97.14 3.87 114.89Hilleshog 7083 RZM Specialty 277.72 94.97 6645.24 97.41 1.22 105.26 23.98 103.23 15.11 95.75 4.61 112.80 59.92 113.41 2.94 87.28HM 7073 RZM Specialty 281.15 96.14 6106.93 89.52 1.23 106.12 21.57 92.85 15.28 96.83 4.67 114.27 54.05 102.30 3.19 94.70Van der Have H68108 APH Specialty 267.21 91.37 6528.50 95.70 1.28 110.44 24.32 104.69 14.64 92.77 3.54 86.62 54.12 102.43 3.12 92.62

7

Table 3. Mean of One Year Performance Summary of 2001 SMBSC Approved Varieties, 2000.

Rec/T (lbs) Rec/A (lbs) Loss to Mol. Yield (T/A) Sugar % CLS Emergence(%)

Tare (%)

% of % of % of % of % of % of % of % ofEntry 2000 Mean 2000 Mean 2000 Mean 2000 Mean 2000 Mean 2000 Mean 2000 Mean 2000 Mean

2001 APPROVED VARIETIES

ACH 309 283.07 96.91 6993.92 98.91 1.21 102.53 24.66 102.75 15.36 97.31 3.96 97.56 54.44 96.39 2.39 81.93Beta 2200 blend 292.64 100.18 7756.86 109.70 1.18 99.99 26.24 109.33 15.81 100.16 4.34 106.92 52.97 93.79 2.96 101.47Beta 3820 298.62 102.23 7543.75 106.68 1.16 98.30 24.88 103.67 16.09 101.94 4.40 108.39 46.24 81.87 1.92 65.82Beta 3945 304.17 104.13 7403.30 104.70 1.14 96.60 24.13 100.54 16.35 103.58 4.47 110.12 51.67 91.49 2.64 90.50Beta 5296 287.06 98.27 6081.30 86.00 1.19 100.84 21.08 87.83 15.54 98.45 3.37 83.02 57.83 102.40 3.79 129.92Beta 6863 293.37 100.43 7235.88 102.33 1.17 99.14 24.37 101.54 15.84 100.35 4.48 110.37 51.28 90.79 2.47 84.67Beta 6904 299.07 102.38 7093.21 100.31 1.16 98.30 23.49 97.88 16.11 102.06 4.68 115.29 55.27 97.86 2.94 100.78Beta 4815 SC 289.18 99.00 7362.40 104.12 1.18 100.12 25.39 105.78 15.65 99.13 3.79 93.37 53.15 94.11 2.73 93.70Hilleshog RH5 291.00 99.62 6751.56 95.48 1.19 100.84 22.86 95.25 15.74 99.72 3.23 79.57 60.34 106.83 2.87 98.38HM 7057 293.14 100.35 6895.97 97.52 1.18 99.99 23.32 97.17 15.83 100.29 3.89 95.83 63.05 111.64 3.18 109.01HM Hector 293.94 100.63 7141.38 100.99 1.17 99.14 23.95 99.79 15.87 100.54 4.71 116.03 62.10 109.96 2.57 88.10Holly Hybrid LM1000 290.68 99.51 6817.85 96.42 1.19 100.84 23.11 96.29 15.72 99.59 3.78 93.12 65.16 115.38 3.67 125.81Van der Have H46109 281.48 96.36 6849.00 96.86 1.22 103.38 24.52 102.17 15.29 96.87 3.67 90.41 60.71 107.50 3.79 129.92

Mean 292.11 100.00 7071.26 100.00 1.18 100.00 24.00 100.00 15.78 100.00 4.06 100.00 56.48 100.00 2.92

TEST MARKET VARIETIES

ACH 952 APH Spec. 295.99 101.33 7331.83 103.68 1.17 99.14 24.56 102.33 15.97 101.18 4.37 107.66 45.26 80.14 3.07 105.24Beta 4600R RZM & APH 301.56 103.24 7383.14 104.41 1.15 97.45 24.30 101.25 16.22 102.76 4.79 118.00 52.59 93.12 2.30 78.84

SPECIALTY

ACH 9744 APH Specialty 281.69 96.43 6218.61 87.94 1.21 102.53 21.89 91.21 15.30 96.93 4.09 100.76 55.24 97.81 3.61 123.75Beta 4811R RZM & APH 278.44 95.32 6857.56 96.98 1.23 104.23 24.39 101.63 15.15 95.98 3.96 97.56 56.30 99.69 2.45 83.98Beta 4930 RZM & APH 290.19 99.34 6918.53 97.84 1.18 99.99 23.63 98.46 15.69 99.40 3.86 95.09 49.90 88.36 3.62 124.09Hilleshog 7083 RZM Specialty 275.11 94.18 6962.74 98.47 1.23 104.23 25.32 105.50 14.99 94.97 4.69 115.54 59.92 106.10 2.29 78.50HM 7073 RZM Specialty 285.98 97.90 6413.67 90.70 1.20 101.68 22.14 92.25 15.50 98.20 4.50 110.86 55.11 97.58 2.06 70.62Van der Have H68108 APH Specialty 265.00 90.72 6434.80 91.00 1.26 106.77 24.10 100.42 14.51 91.93 3.34 82.28 56.99 100.91 2.16 74.04

Table 4. Mean of One Year Performance Summary of 2001 SMBSC Approved Varieties on Diseased Ground, 2000.REVISED

Rec/T (lbs) Rec/A (lbs) Loss to Mol. Yield (T/A) Sugar % Emergence Tare %2000 % of 2000 % of 2000 % of 2000 % of 2000 % of 2000 % of 2000 % of

Entry Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 2200 blend 293.98 99.98 6891.28 115.84 1.17 100.15 23.80 115.98 15.87 100.00 46.77 101.06 2.97 97.13Beta 3820 304.56 103.58 6898.03 115.96 1.13 96.73 22.82 111.20 16.36 103.08 41.83 90.38 1.98 64.75Beta 3945 310.83 105.71 6649.91 111.78 1.11 95.01 21.57 105.11 16.65 104.91 44.10 95.30 3.00 98.11Beta 5296 290.38 98.76 5679.81 95.48 1.18 101.01 19.84 96.68 15.70 98.92 51.67 111.65 3.65 119.37Beta 6863 303.12 103.09 6847.72 115.11 1.13 96.73 23.06 112.37 16.29 102.64 41.99 90.74 3.01 98.44Beta 6904 304.57 103.58 5643.89 94.87 1.13 96.73 18.65 90.88 16.36 103.08 45.09 97.43 3.63 118.72Beta 5815 SC 293.40 99.78 5728.58 96.30 1.17 99.92 20.04 97.64 15.85 99.87 50.88 109.95 2.26 73.91Crystal 309 283.97 96.58 5527.96 92.92 1.20 102.72 19.81 96.53 15.40 97.03 43.20 93.34 3.46 113.16Hilleshog RH5 273.30 92.95 5117.70 86.03 1.25 107.00 18.88 92.00 14.91 93.95 50.05 108.16 2.81 91.90Hilleshog 7057 280.15 95.28 4435.81 74.57 1.22 104.43 16.01 78.02 15.23 95.96 42.37 91.55 3.13 102.36

lleshog Hector 293.26 99.74 5142.27 86.44 1.17 100.15 17.86 87.03 15.83 99.74 50.38 108.87 3.28 107.27lly Hybrid LM1000 299.04 101.70 6579.23 110.60 1.15 98.44 22.49 109.59 16.10 101.44 48.23 104.22 3.59 117.41nderhave H46109 291.84 99.25 6192.96 104.10 1.18 101.01 21.95 106.96 15.77 99.37 45.06 97.37 2.98 97.46

Click forMain Menu

HiHoVa

8

Mean 294.03 100.00 5948.86 100.00 1.17 100.00 20.52 100.00 15.87 100.00 46.28 100.00 3.06 100.00

Approved for last year of sale

Hilleshog Resist 276.06 93.89 4805.36 80.78 1.24 106.14 17.69 86.20 15.04 94.77 48.97 105.82 3.03 99.09Seedex Laser 270.61 92.03 4421.92 74.33 1.25 107.00 16.44 80.11 14.78 93.13 44.73 96.65 3.63 118.72

Test MarketCrystal 952 APH Spec. 294.35 100.11 5832.14 98.04 1.17 100.15 20.34 99.12 15.89 100.12 42.14 91.06 2.84 92.88Beta 4600R RZM & APH 311.59 105.97 7114.22 119.59 1.11 95.01 23.01 112.13 16.69 105.16 46.33 100.12 2.04 66.72

Special VarietiesCrystal 9744 APH Spec. 278.33 94.66 4208.28 70.74 1.22 104.43 15.32 74.65 15.14 95.40 38.61 83.43 3.57 116.75Beta 4811R RZM & APH 310.15 105.48 9656.78 162.33 1.11 95.01 31.24 152.23 16.62 104.72 43.28 93.51 1.71 55.92Beta 4930 RZM & APH 307.43 104.56 7436.36 125.00 1.12 95.87 24.61 119.92 16.49 103.90 45.97 99.34 2.09 68.35Hilleshog 7073 RZM Spec. 297.84 101.30 7597.05 127.71 1.15 98.44 25.84 125.92 16.05 101.13 49.09 106.07 1.81 59.19Hilleshog 7083 RZM Spec. 302.97 103.04 7825.07 131.54 1.14 97.58 26.07 127.04 16.28 102.58 46.38 100.21 1.92 62.79Vanderhave H68108 Aph Spec. 287.51 97.78 6712.90 112.84 1.19 101.86 23.70 115.49 15.57 98.11 42.50 91.84 2.63 86.01

2000 Aphanomyces Readings for Coded Test EntriesBetaseed Nursery - Shakopee, MN2000 Ratings

Foliar 1* Root Index** 2 Yr Mean 1999Code Description Rating % App+ Rating % App+ Foliar1* %App+ Rt.Indx** %App+ Foliar1*

637 Beta 2200(M703 Blend Aph Spec) 3.50 127 5.00 104 2.67 110.3 5.92 93.7 1.83548 Beta 3820(M701 Aph Spec) 2.83 103 4.60 95 2.38 98.3 5.68 89.9 1.92623 Beta 3945 (Aph Spec) 2.33 85 4.50 93 2.38 98.3 5.88 93.1 2.42531 Beta 4811R(M811 Aph&Rzm Spec) 2.33 85 3.50 72 2.04 84.4 5.09 80.6 1.75613 Beta 5296 (Aph Spec) 3.33 121 5.50 114 2.75 113.8 6.42 101.7 2.17635 Beta 6863 (Aph Spec) 4.00 145 5.50 114 3.34 138.0 6.42 101.7 2.67554 Beta 6904(Aph Spec) 3.17 115 4.50 93 2.80 115.6 5.88 93.1 2.42593 Beta BX0960(Rzm&Aph Spec) 2.33 85 4.00 83597 Beta M815(Aph) 3.17 115 4.67 97 2.80 115.6 5.84 92.5 2.42616 Beta M930 (Rzm & Aph Spec) 3.00 109 4.00 83 2.59 107.0 5.38 85.2 2.17636 Crystal 309 (Aph Spec) 2.67 97 4.50 93 2.34 96.6 5.79 91.8 2.00583 Crystal 952(Aph Spec) 2.50 91 4.50 93 2.17 89.6 5.50 87.2 1.83590 Crystal 9744(Aph Spec) 2.00 73 4.17 86 1.75 72.4 5.34 84.5 1.50629 Hilleshog 7057 (Aph Spec) 3.50 127 5.00 104 3.00 124.1 6.09 96.4 2.50617 Hilleshog 7073Rz (Rzm) 3.33 121 5.00 104 3.08 127.4 6.25 99.0 2.83630 Hilleshog 7083Rz (Rzm) 3.33 121 5.17 107 3.25 134.5 6.34 100.4 3.17619 Hilleshog Hector 3.50 127 4.83 100 3.25 134.5 6.21 98.3 3.00549 Hilleshog Resist(Aph Spec) 2.17 79 4.50 93 1.92 79.4 5.84 92.5 1.67620 Hilleshog RH5 (Rhizoc Spec) 3.17 115 4.67 97 2.75 113.8 5.88 93.1 2.33638 Holly LM1000 (98HX829 Aph & Rzm Spec) 2.67 97 4.83 100 2.34 96.6 5.96 94.4 2.00626 Van der Have H46109 2.83 103 4.50 93 2.42 99.9 5.67 89.8 2.00561 Van der Have H68108(Aph Spec) 3.00 109 4.67 97 2.21 91.4 5.63 89.1 1.42

Check Varieties639 Aph Res Check 2.83 103 4.50 93643 Aph Res Check 2.83 103 4.33 90642 RRV Mod Susc Check 4.83 175 6.33 131646 RRV Mod Susc Check 4.83 175 6.00 124640 USDA Res Check 3.67 133 4.83 100644 USDA Res Check 3.17 115 5.33 110641 Very Susc Check 6.67 242 7.83 162645 Very Susc Check 6.33 230 7.50 155

Approval Limit + 2.75 100 4.83 100 2.42 100.0 6.31 100.0 2.08

Trial Mean 3.62 82 5.18 89CV % 18.15 13.51

LSD .05 0.75 21 0.79 15

* Lower numbers indicate better Aphanomyces resistance (1=Healthy, 9=Dead). Foliar rating from 8/7. Factors in plant stand and p

** Lower number indicate better Aphanomyces resistance (1=High number of healthy plants, 9=Few survivors and severe damage). Factors include number and condition of survivors.

+ Approval Limit effective in 2001 (110% of mean of Beta 6904, Crystal 205 and Hilleshog Resist).

Click forMain Menu

9

1999 1998 1998Rt.Indx** Foliar1* Rt.Indx**

6.83 4.30 5.406.75 3.70 4.407.256.67 3.80 4.007.33 4.20 4.907.337.25 3.90 6.10

7.00 4.20 4.606.757.08 3.50 5.306.506.50 3.30 3.807.17 4.00 5.307.507.507.587.17 4.00 5.507.087.086.83 3.60 4.706.58 2.50 3.20

7.79 4.11 5.90

lant health.

Root rating taken 10/3.

10

2000 Cercospora Readings for Coded Test EntriesBetaseed Nursery - Shakopee, MN

Average Rating at Each Date * All Data Adjustedto 5.5 Equivalent

2000 2 Yr 3 Yr 1999 1998Code Description 7/287 8/2** 8/11 8/16 8/21 8/25 Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

897 Beta 2200(M703 Blend Aph Spec) 1.93 2.57 3.69 4.82 6.10 6.91 4.34 4.60 4.63 4.87 4.68726 Beta 3820(M701 Aph Spec) 1.93 2.89 3.86 5.14 5.78 6.75 4.40 4.48 4.53 4.56 4.63900 Beta 3945(Aph Spec) 1.93 2.73 3.86 5.14 6.10 7.07 4.47 4.19 4.27 3.90 4.43817 Beta 4811R(M811 Aph & Rzm Spec) 1.93 2.57 3.37 4.50 5.47 5.95 3.96 4.35 4.43 4.73 4.59902 Beta 5296(Aph Spec) 1.28 1.93 2.89 3.86 4.82 5.47 3.37 3.47 3.48 3.57 3.51886 Beta 6863(Aph Spec) 1.61 2.65 4.02 5.30 6.27 7.07 4.48 4.45 4.49 4.42 4.56730 Beta 6904(Aph Spec) 1.76 2.81 4.02 5.78 6.43 7.23 4.68 4.69 4.67 4.70 4.62759 Beta BX0960(Rzm & Aph Spec) 1.93 2.89 4.17 5.62 6.58 7.55 4.79802 Beta M815(Aph) 1.76 2.65 3.06 4.34 5.30 5.62 3.79 3.77 3.76 3.75 3.75876 Beta M930(Rzm & Aph Spec) 1.93 2.41 3.06 4.50 5.30 5.95 3.86 4.13 4.41879 Crystal 309(Aph Spec) 1.93 2.57 3.54 4.66 5.47 5.62 3.96 4.01 3.99 4.05 3.95768 Crystal 952(Aph) 1.93 2.73 3.86 5.14 5.95 6.58 4.37 4.58 4.80746 Crystal 9744(Aph Spec) 1.93 2.65 3.37 4.66 5.47 6.43 4.09 4.04 4.07 3.99 4.12877 Hilleshog 7057(Aph Spec) 1.76 2.81 3.37 4.17 5.30 5.95 3.89 3.88 3.89 3.86 3.92812 Hilleshog 7073Rz(Rzm Spec) 1.93 2.89 3.86 5.14 6.10 7.07 4.50 4.67 4.83892 Hilleshog 7083Rz(Rzm Spec) 1.93 2.89 4.17 5.47 6.10 7.55 4.69 4.60 4.63 4.52 4.68898 Hilleshog Hector 2.09 2.89 4.17 5.62 6.27 7.23 4.71 4.56 4.60 4.41 4.69844 Hilleshog Resist(Aph Spec) 1.76 2.73 3.69 4.66 5.78 6.10 4.13 4.07 4.18 4.01 4.40894 Hilleshog RH5(Rhizoc Spec) 1.61 2.17 2.25 3.21 4.66 5.47 3.23 3.52 3.56 3.82 3.64880 Holly LM1000(98HX829 Aph & Rzm Spec) 1.76 2.41 3.06 4.50 5.30 5.62 3.78 3.83 3.71 3.88 3.48874 Seedex Laser 1.76 2.41 3.54 4.66 5.47 5.78 3.93 3.88 3.93 3.82 4.05878 Van der Have H46109 1.45 2.25 3.06 4.34 5.14 5.78 3.67 3.69 3.65 3.70 3.59785 Van der Have H68108(Aph Spec) 1.28 2.17 2.73 4.02 4.50 5.30 3.34 3.54 3.57 3.74 3.63

909 Check1 CR Res 1.76 2.33 2.73 3.86 4.66 4.98 3.38910 Check2 Res Source 0.96 1.13 1.93 1.93 2.57 2.73 1.87911 Check3 Susceptible 1.93 2.97 4.98 6.91 7.23 8.51 5.43912 Check4 Mod Susc 1.93 2.89 4.34 5.95 6.58 7.71 4.90913 Check5 CR Res 1.76 2.33 2.57 3.69 4.98 4.98 3.38914 Check6 Res Source 0.96 1.28 1.61 2.09 2.41 2.73 1.85915 Check7 Susceptible 2.25 2.89 4.98 6.75 7.71 8.68 5.54916 Check8 Mod Susc 1.93 2.97 4.17 5.95 6.75 7.71 4.92

Trial Mean 1.93 2.82 4.14 5.49 6.23 7.11 4.62

CV 16% 10% 9% 8% 8% 9% 7%LSD .05 0.35 0.31 0.58 0.58 0.64 0.62 0.35

* Lower numbers indicate better Cercospora resistance (1-Ex,9=Poor).* Ratings adjusted to 5.5 equivalent.**Average of ratings from 8/2 and 8/7.

11

Rhizomania Ratings for 2000 ACS Coded Entries (grown in infested soil).

Top Leaf Crown Root Diameter Disease ELISA Aph. Dis.Entry Description Weight (g) bi Area (cm2) ci Weight (g) d Weight (g) di (cm) e Rating fj (A405) gi Rating h

661 Beta 4811R (Rzm Spec) 112.5 1968 63.4 abc 35.8 4.2 ab 2.3 z 0.06 2.3 abcd

659 Beta BX 0960 (Rzm & Aph Spec) 129.0 2098 29.8 d 21.9 2.5 dc 3.4 wx 0.29 0.9 de

658 Hilleshog 7073Rz (Rzm) 134.6 2114 51.6 bcd 37.5 3.1 abcd 3.3 wxy 0.26 3.1 ab

Chk 1 Susceptible Commercial Variety 161.4 2662 34.1 dc 29.9 2.3 d 3.3 wxy 0.19 1.4 cdeChk 2 Susceptible Commercial Variety 170.6 2738 42.2 dc 41.3 2.7 bcd 3.4 wx 0.27 1.3 cdeChk 3 Resistant Commercial Variety 128.8 2195 73.4 ab 45.3 4.0 abc 2.4 yz 0.10 2.0 bcdChk 4 Resistant Commercial Variety 142.9 2388 51.2 bcd 40.1 3.5 abcd 2.5 xyz 0.21 0.3 e

* Beets were infested with a soil and root mixture containing BNYVV-infested Polymyxa betae and Aphanomyces cochlioides at planting. Thinned to one per pot. Four infested replications/entry.

b Leaves were trimmed at the base of the petioles for determining top weight.

c Leaf area was determined using a Licor Li 3100 Area Meter.

d Beets were cut crosswise at the intersection of root and crown before weighing.

e Diameter was measured across the cut surface at the intersection of root and crown.

f Beets were assigned desease ratings on a scale of 1-4, ( 1 = medium to large size, smooth, slightly constricted, lateral roots were light to medium brown; 4 = stunted, distorted, and sharply constricted with dark lateral roots).

g Absorbance values for beets tested by ELISA for BNYVV. Values greater than 0.1 were considered to be positive.

h Aphanomyces ratings on a 0-4 scale were made at the seedling stage (0 = no obvious symptoms, 4 = all plants within a pot were mostly or entirely dead).

I Means followed by no letters or the same letter within columns are not significantly different according to Duncan's multiple range test (P = 0.05).

j Means for disease ratings followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Duncan's multiple range test (P = 0.10).

12

Rhizoctonia Ratings for 2000 SMBSC Coded Entries.

Description DI1 % Healthy2 % 0 - 33 Z%4 Healthy Z% 0 - 34

Crystal RZ1010 3.3 5 54 8.45 47.51

Hilleshog RH5 3.5 8 50 10.60 45.33

Susceptible Check 5.4 0 12 0.00 17.64

Highly Resistant Check 2.7 23 78 22.70 65.24Resistant Check 3.7 3 39 4.87 38.34

Experiment Mean 4.5 2 21 2.94 21.69

LSD (0.05)5 0.80 13.15 16.90

1Disease Index is based on a scale of 0 (= healthy) to 7 (= plant dead).2Percent of healthy roots (disease classes 0 and 1 combined).3Percent of diseased roots likely to be taken for processing (disease classes 0 through 3 combined).4Percentages were transformed to arcsin-square roots to normalize the data for analyzes.

5601 Hector/Wehking SMBSC Commercial (Non-Disease)American Crystal Sugar - Technical Service Center Coded Trial - Lattice30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot

Rec/T (lbs) Rec/A (lbs) Loss to Mol. YiEntry Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %

Mean Mean Mean MBeta 2200 blend 267.1 101 0.54 6770.19 112 0.03 1.27 99 0.58 25.12Beta 3820 277.6 105 0.02 6797.22 112 0.02 1.23 96 0.03 24.6Beta 3945 291.1 111 0.00 7041.84 116 0.00 1.18 92 0.00 24.13Beta 4811R 257.4 98 0.35 5700.71 94 0.25 1.3 102 0.24 22.32Beta 5296 255.6 97 0.22 5415.11 89 0.04 1.3 102 0.27 21.05Beta 6863 268.1 102 0.44 6156.29 102 0.77 1.27 99 0.52 22.68Beta 6904 271.6 103 0.19 6067.27 100 0.99 1.25 98 0.21 22.32Beta BX960 279.5 106 0.01 6550.94 108 0.12 1.22 96 0.01 23.39Beta M930 263.3 100 1.00 6151.26 101 0.78 1.29 100 0.78 23.37Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 273 104 0.13 6255.87 103 0.54 1.26 98 0.24 23.07Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 257.4 98 0.35 5737.87 95 0.30 1.31 102 0.22 22.34Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 275.2 105 0.06 6036.34 100 0.93 1.23 96 0.03 22.01Crystal 309 259 98 0.50 6945.57 115 0.01 1.3 101 0.37 26.8Crystal 952 271.3 103 0.21 6903.11 114 0.01 1.25 98 0.20 25.5Crystal 9744 254.1 97 0.15 5570.21 92 0.12 1.32 103 0.10 21.81Crystal 999 271.4 103 0.20 6793.7 112 0.02 1.25 98 0.14 24.87Hilleshog 7057 275.3 105 0.06 6443.06 106 0.23 1.24 97 0.08 23.47Hilleshog 7073 251.6 96 0.07 5238.49 86 0.01 1.32 103 0.04 20.87Hilleshog 7083 250.8 95 0.05 6060.89 100 0.99 1.33 104 0.03 24.2Hilleshog Hector 269.3 102 0.34 5828.99 96 0.45 1.26 99 0.43 21.68Hilleshog Resist 261.5 99 0.78 6186.62 102 0.70 1.29 101 0.69 23.45Hilleshog RH5 251.6 96 0.07 5516.15 91 0.08 1.32 103 0.04 21.93Holly Hybrid 99HX975 225.4 86 0.00 4461.57 74 0.00 1.37 107 0.00 19.84Holly Hybrid LM1000 263.9 100 0.92 6046.04 100 0.95 1.28 100 0.87 22.89Seedex Laser 264.1 100 0.89 5925.5 98 0.66 1.28 100 0.87 22.51Seedex SX1020 247.5 94 0.01 4870.33 80 0.00 1.33 104 0.02 19.54Vanderhave H46109 256.4 97 0.27 6510.77 107 0.16 1.31 102 0.17 25.41Vanderhave H46140 277.7 105 0.02 5954.28 98 0.72 1.23 96 0.03 21.43Vanderhave H46177 278.7 106 0.02 6648.42 110 0.06 1.23 96 0.02 24.19Vanderhave H68108 231.7 88 0.00 5374.1 89 0.03 1.36 106 0.00 23.35Check Mean 263.3 6065.29 1.28 23Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.57 10.12 3.2 8.37F Value 4.98** 3.99** 4.09** 2.77**Mean LSD (0.05) 17.96 7 892.08 15 0.06 5 2.84Mean LSD (0.01) 23.8 9 1182.07 19 0.08 6 3.77

Click forMain Menu

13

eld (T/A)Test P-Valean

109 0.04107 0.11105 0.26

97 0.4991 0.0599 0.7497 0.49

102 0.70102 0.71100 0.95

97 0.5196 0.32

116 0.00111 0.01

95 0.23108 0.06102 0.64

91 0.03105 0.23

94 0.19102 0.65

95 0.2886 0.00

100 0.9198 0.6285 0.00

110 0.0293 0.12

105 0.23102 0.73

1216

14

5601 Hector/Wehking (Continued) SMBSC Commercial (Non-Disease)American Crystal Sugar - Technical Service Center Coded Trial - Lattice30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot

Sugar % Emergence 1 Emergence 2 TareEntry Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val

Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 2200 blend 14.63 101 0.54 49.72 96 0.61 67.7 94 0.20 4.03 127 0.15Beta 3820 15.12 105 0.02 45.42 88 0.12 56.3 78 0.00 2.1 66 0.07Beta 3945 15.74 109 0.00 46.41 90 0.19 68.1 95 0.24 2.68 85 0.41Beta 4811R 14.18 98 0.36 46.83 90 0.22 66.3 92 0.09 3.41 108 0.68Beta 5296 14.08 98 0.22 54.54 105 0.51 73.3 102 0.65 4.72 149 0.01Beta 6863 14.67 102 0.44 44.27 85 0.07 63.9 89 0.01 2.32 73 0.16Beta 6904 14.83 103 0.19 57.31 111 0.18 70.8 99 0.76 2.72 86 0.45Beta BX960 15.2 105 0.01 42.98 83 0.03 73.6 102 0.58 2.7 85 0.44Beta M930 14.45 100 0.98 52.12 101 0.94 66 92 0.07 2.38 75 0.19Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 14.9 103 0.12 50.79 98 0.80 77.8 108 0.06 4.42 140 0.03Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 14.18 98 0.36 63.91 123 0.00 84.4 117 0.00 5.08 161 0.00Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 15 104 0.06 50.88 98 0.82 69.4 97 0.45 1.95 62 0.04Crystal 309 14.25 99 0.51 52.68 102 0.84 75.7 105 0.23 2.52 80 0.28Crystal 952 14.81 103 0.21 39.73 77 0.00 63.6 88 0.01 2.45 77 0.23Crystal 9744 14.02 97 0.15 42.6 82 0.03 78.5 109 0.04 4.31 136 0.05Crystal 999 14.82 103 0.20 47.11 91 0.25 66.3 92 0.09 2.69 85 0.42Hilleshog 7057 15.01 104 0.06 66.58 128 0.00 78.5 109 0.04 2.55 81 0.30Hilleshog 7073 13.91 96 0.07 57.22 110 0.19 74.7 104 0.37 3.31 105 0.80Hilleshog 7083 13.86 96 0.05 56.83 110 0.22 76 106 0.19 2.53 80 0.28Hilleshog Hector 14.73 102 0.34 66.12 128 0.00 79.5 111 0.02 2.29 72 0.14Hilleshog Resist 14.36 99 0.79 50.5 97 0.75 79.5 111 0.02 2.81 89 0.55Hilleshog RH5 13.9 96 0.07 58.19 112 0.12 78.8 110 0.03 3.06 97 0.87Holly Hybrid 99HX975 12.64 87 0.00 35.88 69 0.00 61.1 85 0.00 1.81 57 0.02Holly Hybrid LM1000 14.48 100 0.91 61.77 119 0.02 82.3 115 0.00 3.95 125 0.18Seedex Laser 14.49 100 0.88 48 93 0.35 63.9 89 0.01 2.83 89 0.57Seedex SX1020 13.71 95 0.01 34.05 66 0.00 53.5 74 0.00 2.65 84 0.39Vanderhave H46109 14.13 98 0.28 59.85 115 0.05 77.4 108 0.08 4.51 143 0.02Vanderhave H46140 15.12 105 0.02 54.57 105 0.50 71.9 100 0.98 4.85 153 0.01Vanderhave H46177 15.16 105 0.02 67.89 131 0.00 81.9 114 0.00 4.59 145 0.02Vanderhave H68108 12.94 90 0.00 50.08 97 0.67 74 103 0.50 2.68 85 0.41Check Mean 14.44 51.83 71.8 3.16Coeff. of Var. (%) 3.89 15.38 9 37.42F Value 5.05** 4.13** 5.83** 2.59**Mean LSD (0.05) 0.84 6 11.69 23 9.08 13 1.68 53Mean LSD (0.01) 1.11 8 15.49 30 12 17 2.23 70

* Significant at 5%. ** Significant at 1%. Ns Not significant. 2nd column for each trait is percent of check. General Mean used as check.Mean LSD is only appropriate for comparing entry means with 3rd column for trait is probability that detection of a diff. (from check mean) each other when F value is significant. of this size due to chance.

15

5602 - Lake Lillian/Schmoll SMBSC Commercial (Non-Disease)American Crystal Sugar - Techn.Service Center Coded Trial - Lattice30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot

Rec/T (lbs) Rec/A (lbs) Loss to Mol. Yield (T/A)Entry Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val

Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 2200 blend 290 102 0.43 6041.54 103 0.62 1.19 98 0.49 21.08 102 0.74Beta 3820 285 101 0.79 5874.02 101 0.93 1.2 99 0.84 20.59 100 0.97Beta 3945 285 101 0.84 6060.97 104 0.59 1.2 100 0.88 21.29 103 0.62Beta 4811R 272 96 0.19 6144.52 105 0.46 1.25 104 0.15 22.5 109 0.16Beta 5296 297 105 0.11 5367.16 92 0.25 1.16 96 0.12 18.07 88 0.05Beta 6863 284 100 0.92 6510.21 111 0.10 1.2 99 0.82 22.65 110 0.13Beta 6904 290 102 0.43 6119.9 105 0.49 1.19 98 0.49 21.11 102 0.72Beta BX960 299 106 0.06 6135.95 105 0.47 1.15 95 0.07 20.58 100 0.96Beta M930 289 102 0.53 5520.11 95 0.43 1.19 98 0.57 19.16 93 0.26Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 287 101 0.69 5414.06 93 0.30 1.17 97 0.21 18.94 92 0.20Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 300 106 0.05 6194.43 106 0.39 1.14 94 0.03 20.82 101 0.89Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 285 101 0.80 5860.34 100 0.96 1.2 99 0.80 20.32 98 0.81Crystal 309 271 96 0.17 5697.8 98 0.73 1.25 104 0.17 20.82 101 0.89Crystal 952 286 101 0.72 5912.34 101 0.86 1.2 99 0.82 20.84 101 0.88Crystal 9744 274 97 0.27 4853.56 83 0.02 1.24 103 0.28 17.61 85 0.02Crystal 999 265 94 0.04 6195.75 106 0.38 1.28 106 0.03 23.62 114 0.03Hilleshog 7057 281 99 0.76 5208.18 89 0.12 1.22 101 0.67 18.49 90 0.10Hilleshog 7073 285 101 0.82 5651.98 97 0.65 1.2 100 0.88 19.53 95 0.40Hilleshog 7083 257 91 0.00 6636.69 114 0.05 1.3 107 0.01 26.06 126 0.00Hilleshog Hector 286 101 0.78 6169.97 106 0.42 1.2 99 0.83 21.34 103 0.59Hilleshog Resist 276 97 0.39 5020.07 86 0.05 1.23 102 0.48 18.1 88 0.06Hilleshog RH5 292 103 0.33 5689.29 97 0.71 1.18 97 0.33 19.35 94 0.33Holly Hybrid 99HX975 288 102 0.54 6643.62 114 0.05 1.19 99 0.63 23.34 113 0.04Holly Hybrid LM1000 284 100 0.92 6354.05 109 0.21 1.21 100 0.97 21.7 105 0.42Seedex Laser 279 98 0.58 4833.37 83 0.02 1.23 102 0.48 17.57 85 0.02Seedex SX1020 277 98 0.49 5429.19 93 0.32 1.24 102 0.41 19.6 95 0.43Vanderhave H46109 275 97 0.31 5746.53 98 0.82 1.24 103 0.31 21.29 103 0.62Vanderhave H46140 294 104 0.19 5950.29 102 0.79 1.16 96 0.17 20.06 97 0.66Vanderhave H46177 300 106 0.05 6444.07 110 0.14 1.15 95 0.07 21.46 104 0.53Vanderhave H68108 263 93 0.02 5511.38 94 0.42 1.28 106 0.02 21.35 103 0.59Check Mean 283 5839.71 1.21 20.64Coeff. of Var. (%) 5.73 14.05 5.11 12.92F Value 1.57ns 1.42ns 1.56ns 2.00**Mean LSD (0.05) 24.28 9 1162.99 20 0.09 8 3.75 18Mean LSD (0.01) 32.19 11 1541.15 26 0.12 10 4.96 24

16

5602 - Lake Lillian/Schmoll (Continued) SMBSC Commercial (Non-Disease)American Crystal Sugar - Techn.Service Center Coded Trial - Lattice30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 2200 blend 15.68 102 0.43 42.35 96 0.69 65.3 94 0.17 3.03 98 0.94Beta 3820 15.47 101 0.79 35.08 80 0.02 54.3 78 0.00 2.04 66 0.13Beta 3945 15.45 101 0.83 35.75 81 0.04 67.9 97 0.58 3.81 123 0.30Beta 4811R 14.86 97 0.20 54.15 123 0.01 69.1 99 0.87 1.29 42 0.01Beta 5296 16 104 0.11 45.15 103 0.75 72.2 104 0.42 4.21 136 0.10Beta 6863 15.4 100 0.93 44.8 102 0.82 63.8 92 0.07 3.43 111 0.62Beta 6904 15.69 102 0.42 46.53 106 0.50 60.4 87 0.00 3.14 102 0.94Beta BX960 16.12 105 0.06 42.7 97 0.75 68.8 99 0.78 1.75 57 0.05Beta M930 15.62 102 0.53 30.93 70 0.00 67.2 97 0.44 5.93 192 0.00Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 15.5 101 0.74 45.13 103 0.75 77.9 112 0.01 2.6 84 0.48Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 16.14 105 0.05 56.25 128 0.00 79.2 114 0.00 3.92 127 0.22Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 15.47 101 0.80 39.6 90 0.26 67.1 96 0.42 3.03 98 0.93Crystal 309 14.82 96 0.17 49.65 113 0.14 65.8 94 0.23 1.71 55 0.05Crystal 952 15.51 101 0.72 30.55 70 0.00 61.7 89 0.01 2.83 92 0.71Crystal 9744 14.93 97 0.27 35.43 81 0.03 77.4 111 0.02 3.22 104 0.85Crystal 999 14.55 95 0.04 49.65 113 0.14 66.2 95 0.27 3.2 104 0.87Hilleshog 7057 15.25 99 0.77 39.6 90 0.26 76.6 110 0.03 4.72 153 0.02Hilleshog 7073 15.46 101 0.82 37.83 86 0.12 71.8 103 0.50 1.76 57 0.05Hilleshog 7083 14.17 92 0.00 46.55 106 0.49 74.8 107 0.10 2.13 69 0.16Hilleshog Hector 15.48 101 0.77 39.58 90 0.26 79.5 114 0.00 2.81 91 0.69Hilleshog Resist 15.02 98 0.38 33.33 76 0.01 78.3 112 0.01 3.23 105 0.83Hilleshog RH5 15.76 103 0.33 45.83 104 0.62 73.6 106 0.21 2.32 75 0.26Holly Hybrid 99HX975 15.61 102 0.53 30.55 70 0.00 50.9 73 0.00 1.76 57 0.05Holly Hybrid LM1000 15.41 100 0.91 47.93 109 0.30 76.9 110 0.02 4.38 142 0.06Seedex Laser 15.16 99 0.59 50 114 0.12 67.8 97 0.56 3.49 113 0.56Seedex SX1020 15.1 98 0.50 39.93 91 0.30 55.6 80 0.00 3.04 99 0.95Vanderhave H46109 14.97 97 0.31 52.08 119 0.04 75.7 109 0.06 3.21 104 0.86Vanderhave H46140 15.88 103 0.19 56.6 129 0.00 76.4 110 0.03 5.04 163 0.01Vanderhave H46177 16.14 105 0.05 61.43 140 0.00 76.9 110 0.02 3.27 106 0.79Vanderhave H68108 14.42 94 0.02 52.4 119 0.03 70.3 101 0.85 2.33 75 0.27Check Mean 15.37 43.91 69.7 3.09Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.89 17.78 8.95 44.77F Value 1.57ns 4.46** 5.68** 2.36**Mean LSD (0.05) 1.12 7 10.97 25 9.01 13 1.95 63Mean LSD (0.01) 1.49 10 14.54 33 11.9 17 2.59 84


17

5603 Clara City/Condon SMBSC Commercial (Non-Disease)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH. SERV. CENTER Coded Trial - Lattice30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot

Entry Rec/T (lbs) Rec/A (lbs) Loss to Mol. Yield (T/A)Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val

Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 2200 blend 292.2 98 0.45 6008.87 108 0.19 1.17 102 0.47 20.61 111 0.07Beta 3820 282.7 95 0.06 5715.2 103 0.62 1.2 105 0.10 20.52 111 0.09Beta 3945 298.6 100 0.99 6079.71 110 0.13 1.15 100 0.96 20.27 109 0.13Beta 4811R 291.8 98 0.42 5672.13 102 0.71 1.18 103 0.35 19.49 105 0.41Beta 5296 291.5 98 0.40 4822.7 87 0.05 1.18 102 0.40 16.53 89 0.08Beta 6863 301.4 101 0.75 5802.5 105 0.46 1.14 99 0.69 19.24 104 0.54Beta 6904 307.4 103 0.31 5824.31 105 0.42 1.12 97 0.36 19 102 0.69Beta BX960 292.7 98 0.48 6196.62 112 0.07 1.17 102 0.47 21.28 115 0.02Beta M930 303.1 101 0.61 5949.39 107 0.25 1.13 98 0.52 19.67 106 0.32Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 307.2 103 0.33 5565.02 100 0.94 1.12 97 0.33 18.12 98 0.71Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 301.9 101 0.71 5766.96 104 0.52 1.14 99 0.68 19.17 103 0.58Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 307.1 103 0.33 5625.52 102 0.81 1.12 97 0.29 18.33 99 0.86Crystal 309 300.2 100 0.87 5971.07 108 0.23 1.15 100 0.89 19.92 107 0.23Crystal 952 302.9 101 0.63 5738.86 104 0.57 1.14 99 0.65 18.92 102 0.74Crystal 9744 285.8 96 0.13 4324.54 78 0.00 1.2 104 0.12 15.15 82 0.00Crystal 999 311.2 104 0.15 6911.55 125 0.00 1.1 96 0.13 22.15 119 0.00Hilleshog 7057 301.5 101 0.75 4804.65 87 0.04 1.14 99 0.82 15.89 86 0.02Hilleshog 7073 287.3 96 0.19 4700.95 85 0.02 1.19 104 0.18 16.38 88 0.06Hilleshog 7083 301.3 101 0.76 5199.18 94 0.34 1.14 99 0.76 17.32 93 0.29Hilleshog Hector 305.6 102 0.42 6306.81 114 0.03 1.12 97 0.35 20.62 111 0.07Hilleshog Resist 293.2 98 0.52 4907.96 89 0.08 1.17 102 0.51 16.73 90 0.12Hilleshog RH5 294.6 99 0.63 5280.47 95 0.47 1.17 101 0.65 17.91 97 0.58Holly Hybrid 99HX975 281.8 94 0.05 4483.51 81 0.00 1.22 106 0.04 15.87 86 0.02Holly Hybrid LM1000 317.4 106 0.03 5575.55 101 0.92 1.08 94 0.03 17.56 95 0.39Seedex Laser 296.1 99 0.76 4855.96 88 0.06 1.16 101 0.76 16.29 88 0.05Seedex SX1020 278.4 93 0.02 4803.89 87 0.04 1.23 107 0.01 17.24 93 0.26Vanderhave H46109 296.1 99 0.76 4951.09 89 0.10 1.16 101 0.80 16.69 90 0.11Vanderhave H46140 323.4 108 0.00 5694.61 103 0.66 1.06 92 0.01 17.62 95 0.42Vanderhave H46177 318.9 107 0.02 6343.06 115 0.03 1.08 94 0.03 19.85 107 0.25Vanderhave H68108 288.2 96 0.22 6265.52 113 0.04 1.19 104 0.20 21.81 118 0.01Check Mean 298.7 5538.27 1.15 18.54Coeff. of Var. (%) 5.65 12.73 5.51 12.16F Value 1.56ns 3.05** 1.59ns 2.68**Mean LSD (0.05) 24.47 8 1014.64 18 0.09 8 3.26 18Mean LSD (0.01) 32.42 11 1344.5 24 0.12 11 4.31 23

18

5603 Clara City/Condon (Continued) SMBSC Commercial (Non-Disease)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH. SERV. CENTER Coded Trial - Lattice30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 2200 blend 15.78 98 0.44 28.47 112 0.59 47.6 85 0.04 2.25 84 0.44Beta 3820 15.34 95 0.06 25.7 101 0.97 45.9 82 0.02 2.02 75 0.23Beta 3945 16.08 100 0.99 22.9 90 0.64 49.7 88 0.12 2.5 93 0.74Beta 4811R 15.77 98 0.43 24.3 95 0.83 51.8 92 0.30 1.63 61 0.06Beta 5296 15.75 98 0.40 26.4 104 0.87 61.8 110 0.19 4.41 164 0.00Beta 6863 16.21 101 0.76 26.02 102 0.92 55.2 98 0.82 3.32 124 0.25Beta 6904 16.49 103 0.31 24.65 97 0.88 56.6 101 0.93 3.55 132 0.12Beta BX960 15.81 98 0.48 27.07 106 0.77 59.4 106 0.45 3 112 0.57Beta M930 16.29 101 0.61 30.57 120 0.36 49 87 0.09 2.56 95 0.82Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 16.48 102 0.33 25.32 99 0.98 58 103 0.67 2.86 106 0.75Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 16.23 101 0.71 24.65 97 0.88 64.6 115 0.05 2.34 87 0.53Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 16.47 102 0.33 32.62 128 0.20 55.2 98 0.81 2.82 105 0.80Crystal 309 16.15 100 0.86 30.92 121 0.32 60.7 108 0.29 2.52 94 0.77Crystal 952 16.28 101 0.62 15.27 60 0.07 48.3 86 0.06 1.41 53 0.02Crystal 9744 15.49 96 0.14 15.95 63 0.09 61.5 109 0.21 4.53 169 0.00Crystal 999 16.66 104 0.15 32.95 129 0.18 49.7 88 0.12 2.65 99 0.95Hilleshog 7057 16.22 101 0.74 21.17 83 0.43 66.3 118 0.02 2.7 101 0.98Hilleshog 7073 15.56 97 0.19 20.15 79 0.33 60.8 108 0.28 2.18 81 0.36Hilleshog 7083 16.21 101 0.76 22.57 89 0.60 59.4 106 0.46 2.76 103 0.90Hilleshog Hector 16.4 102 0.43 19.1 75 0.25 60.8 108 0.28 1.7 63 0.08Hilleshog Resist 15.83 98 0.52 23.95 94 0.78 68.1 121 0.01 2.48 92 0.71Hilleshog RH5 15.9 99 0.63 30.55 120 0.36 58 103 0.67 2 74 0.21Holly Hybrid 99HX975 15.31 95 0.05 18.75 74 0.22 48.6 87 0.08 2.08 77 0.27Holly Hybrid LM1000 16.95 105 0.03 28.47 112 0.59 58 103 0.67 2.42 90 0.63Seedex Laser 15.96 99 0.76 25.35 99 0.98 51 91 0.22 2.93 109 0.66Seedex SX1020 15.15 94 0.02 11.8 46 0.01 41.7 74 0.00 2.66 99 0.97Vanderhave H46109 15.96 99 0.76 29.52 116 0.46 58 103 0.67 2.64 98 0.94Vanderhave H46140 17.23 107 0.00 32.62 128 0.20 53.1 95 0.47 4.02 150 0.02Vanderhave H46177 17.02 106 0.02 39.25 154 0.01 69.5 124 0.00 2.78 104 0.86Vanderhave H68108 15.6 97 0.22 27.4 108 0.73 58 103 0.67 2.8 104 0.83Check Mean 16.09 25.48 56.2 2.68Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.85 43.72 15.3 41.6F Value 1.56ns 1.12ns 2.54** 1.69*Mean LSD (0.05) 1.13 7 15.66 61 12.1 21 1.57 58Mean LSD (0.01) 1.5 9 20.75 81 16 28 2.08 77


19

5604 Montevideo/PayneAMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH. SERV. CENTER SMBSC Commercial (Non-Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 2200 blend 321.6 101 0.78 10363.1 119 0.00 1.07 99 0.83 32.29 119 0.00Beta 3820 333.2 104 0.09 9990.91 115 0.00 1.04 96 0.11 29.77 109 0.02Beta 3945 337.6 106 0.03 9104.54 105 0.33 1.03 96 0.10 27 99 0.83Beta 4811R 305.4 96 0.09 8771.36 101 0.85 1.13 105 0.07 28.76 106 0.17Beta 5296 308.1 97 0.18 7417.48 85 0.00 1.11 103 0.19 24.15 89 0.01Beta 6863 328.2 103 0.28 9002.31 104 0.47 1.04 97 0.17 27.4 101 0.89Beta 6904 335.4 105 0.05 9124.14 105 0.31 1.04 96 0.11 27.13 100 0.92Beta BX960 325.9 102 0.41 9466.67 109 0.07 1.07 99 0.60 28.91 106 0.14Beta M930 318.6 100 0.94 9121.35 105 0.31 1.07 100 0.84 28.49 105 0.26Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 325.6 102 0.44 8201.39 94 0.25 1.05 98 0.32 25.25 93 0.08Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 333.7 105 0.08 8740.5 101 0.91 1.02 95 0.04 26.46 97 0.49Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 328.4 103 0.27 8320.89 96 0.38 1.05 98 0.35 25.34 93 0.09Crystal 309 318.7 100 0.95 8347.68 96 0.42 1.08 100 0.94 26.27 96 0.39Crystal 952 330.9 104 0.16 9171.66 106 0.26 1.04 97 0.17 27.84 102 0.59Crystal 9744 317.9 100 0.87 8169.48 94 0.22 1.08 100 0.91 25.76 95 0.19Crystal 999 318.4 100 0.92 9631.68 111 0.03 1.07 99 0.84 30.32 111 0.01Hilleshog 7057 322.2 101 0.72 9111.45 105 0.32 1.07 99 0.59 28.24 104 0.37Hilleshog 7073 321 101 0.83 8350.64 96 0.42 1.07 99 0.67 25.96 95 0.25Hilleshog 7083 317 99 0.78 8201.68 94 0.25 1.08 100 0.96 25.88 95 0.22Hilleshog Hector 326.3 102 0.39 9441.33 109 0.08 1.05 97 0.23 28.72 105 0.18Hilleshog Resist 303 95 0.05 8257.75 95 0.31 1.14 105 0.04 27.25 100 0.99Hilleshog RH5 329.1 103 0.23 9056.16 104 0.39 1.06 98 0.43 27.45 101 0.85Holly Hybrid 99HX975 295.1 92 0.00 7929.75 91 0.07 1.17 108 0.00 27.12 100 0.92Holly Hybrid LM1000 322.1 101 0.72 8072.6 93 0.15 1.07 99 0.76 24.97 92 0.04Seedex Laser 298.9 94 0.01 7689.2 88 0.02 1.16 107 0.01 25.95 95 0.25Seedex SX1020 294.4 92 0.00 7323.59 84 0.00 1.16 108 0.00 24.83 91 0.03Vanderhave H46109 313.8 98 0.51 8281.05 95 0.33 1.1 102 0.51 26.54 97 0.53Vanderhave H46140 320.7 100 0.85 9015.72 104 0.45 1.06 99 0.57 28.08 103 0.45Vanderhave H46177 324.5 102 0.52 8668.84 100 0.96 1.06 98 0.38 26.87 99 0.75Vanderhave H68108 301.2 94 0.03 8431.44 97 0.54 1.14 106 0.03 28.08 103 0.45Check Mean 319.2 8692.55 1.08 27.24Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.95 9.74 4.8 8.19F Value 2.06** 2.74** 2.21** 2.43**Mean LSD (0.05) 23.34 7 1208.03 14 0.08 7 3.17 12Mean LSD (0.01) 30.94 10 1600.42 18 0.1 9 4.21 15

20

5604 Montevideo/Payne (Continued)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH. SERV. CENTER SMBSC Commercial (Non-Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 2200 blend 17.15 101 0.77 31.27 96 0.84 61.5 96 0.45 1.85 78 0.37Beta 3820 17.7 104 0.09 35.4 109 0.64 50.3 78 0.00 1.58 67 0.17Beta 3945 17.92 105 0.02 30.55 94 0.75 61.8 96 0.51 1.52 64 0.15Beta 4811R 16.4 96 0.10 43.07 132 0.09 57.3 89 0.06 2.79 118 0.47Beta 5296 16.52 97 0.18 30.9 95 0.79 71.9 112 0.03 2.47 104 0.86Beta 6863 17.45 102 0.29 27.42 84 0.41 63.2 98 0.78 1.73 73 0.27Beta 6904 17.8 104 0.05 34.02 105 0.81 62.1 97 0.57 2.92 123 0.34Beta BX960 17.36 102 0.40 29.52 91 0.63 58.7 91 0.13 2.56 108 0.75Beta M930 17.01 100 0.93 23.97 74 0.17 57.6 90 0.07 2.58 109 0.72Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 17.33 102 0.45 30.22 93 0.71 70.5 110 0.08 2.52 107 0.79Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 17.7 104 0.09 37.15 114 0.45 68.1 106 0.28 3.67 155 0.03Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 17.47 103 0.26 43.77 135 0.07 63.2 98 0.79 1.32 56 0.07Crystal 309 17.01 100 0.95 27.05 83 0.38 56.6 88 0.04 2.78 117 0.48Crystal 952 17.59 103 0.16 22.22 68 0.10 54.2 84 0.01 3.82 161 0.01Crystal 9744 16.98 100 0.87 26.75 82 0.35 70.9 110 0.07 3.24 137 0.13Crystal 999 16.99 100 0.90 30.55 94 0.75 59 92 0.16 1.49 63 0.13Hilleshog 7057 17.17 101 0.73 42.35 130 0.11 74.3 116 0.01 2.22 94 0.80Hilleshog 7073 17.12 100 0.84 26.4 81 0.32 63.5 99 0.86 1.11 47 0.03Hilleshog 7083 16.93 99 0.77 28.47 88 0.51 76 118 0.00 2.05 86 0.58Hilleshog Hector 17.36 102 0.40 38.52 118 0.33 69.5 108 0.15 2.91 123 0.35Hilleshog Resist 16.28 96 0.05 34.4 106 0.76 67.7 105 0.33 2.48 105 0.85Hilleshog RH5 17.51 103 0.22 34.02 105 0.81 72.9 114 0.02 3.28 138 0.12Holly Hybrid 99HX975 15.92 93 0.00 19.07 59 0.03 52.8 82 0.00 2.02 85 0.55Holly Hybrid LM1000 17.18 101 0.72 50.7 156 0.00 72.6 113 0.02 2.78 117 0.47Seedex Laser 16.1 94 0.02 39.95 123 0.23 60.4 94 0.30 2.12 90 0.67Seedex SX1020 15.89 93 0.00 19.07 59 0.03 49.3 77 0.00 1.84 78 0.36Vanderhave H46109 16.79 99 0.51 26.37 81 0.32 71.9 112 0.03 3.81 161 0.01Vanderhave H46140 17.1 100 0.87 36.8 113 0.49 70.5 110 0.08 2.78 117 0.47Vanderhave H46177 17.28 101 0.53 44.12 136 0.06 74.3 116 0.01 1.53 65 0.15Vanderhave H68108 16.2 95 0.03 31.25 96 0.84 62.9 98 0.71 1.29 55 0.06Check Mean 17.04 32.51 64.2 2.37Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.34 38.64 11.4 46.56F Value 2.04** 1.48ns 4.33** 1.65*Mean LSD (0.05) 1.09 6 17.65 54 10.3 16 1.64 69Mean LSD (0.01) 1.45 8 23.39 72 13.6 21 2.18 92


5605 REVISED DeGraff/Bosch SMBSC Commercial (Disease)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. – TECH. SERV. CENTER Coded Trial - Lattice30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot

Rec/T (lbs) Rec/A (lbs) Loss to Mol. YiEntry Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %

Mean Mean Mean MBeta 2200 blend 285.4 97 0.28 4955.97 97 0.71 1.2 103 0.23 17.44Beta 3820 289.9 99 0.65 5775.73 113 0.12 1.19 101 0.56 19.71Beta 3945 300.3 102 0.32 5398.15 106 0.5 1.14 98 0.29 17.71Beta 4811R 311.2 106 0.01 7870.31 154 0 1.1 94 0.01 25.37Beta 5296 282.6 96 0.14 4279.93 84 0.05 1.21 103 0.13 15.29Beta 6863 307.7 105 0.04 5438.47 106 0.45 1.12 95 0.04 17.64Beta 6904 302.6 103 0.19 4843.37 95 0.52 1.14 97 0.2 15.86Beta BX960 314.7 107 0 6695.89 131 0 1.09 93 0 21.4Beta M930 310 106 0.02 7745.06 151 0 1.11 95 0.02 24.64Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 301.9 103 0.22 4234.07 83 0.04 1.14 97 0.21 14.09Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 290.7 99 0.73 4908.31 96 0.63 1.18 101 0.72 17.21Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 293.2 100 1 4428.6 87 0.11 1.17 100 0.96 15.32Crystal 309 291.5 99 0.81 3527.36 69 0 1.18 101 0.8 12.05Crystal 952 292.8 100 0.96 4910.18 96 0.63 1.18 100 0.84 16.66Crystal 9744 273.3 93 0.01 2869.33 56 0 1.25 106 0.01 10.39Crystal 999 274.9 94 0.01 4835.16 95 0.51 1.24 106 0.01 17.63Hilleshog 7057 279.1 95 0.05 3454.4 68 0 1.22 104 0.06 12.6Hilleshog 7073 300.9 103 0.28 6755.54 132 0 1.14 97 0.27 22.22Hilleshog 7083 304.7 104 0.11 7766.8 152 0 1.12 96 0.08 25.38Hilleshog Hector 294.7 101 0.83 4081.75 80 0.02 1.17 99 0.81 13.89Hilleshog Resist 277.3 95 0.03 2990.16 58 0 1.23 105 0.02 10.82Hilleshog RH5 275.2 94 0.01 4198.6 82 0.03 1.24 106 0.01 15.5Holly Hybrid 99HX975 295.1 101 0.78 6544.74 128 0 1.16 99 0.79 22.05Holly Hybrid LM1000 299.1 102 0.41 5251.1 103 0.75 1.15 98 0.33 17.85Seedex Laser 272.8 93 0.01 3326.52 65 0 1.25 107 0 12.31Seedex SX1020 275.5 94 0.01 4242.03 83 0.04 1.24 106 0.01 15.42Vanderhave H46109 291.4 99 0.8 4564.9 89 0.2 1.18 101 0.78 15.75Vanderhave H46140 315.5 108 0 6434.91 126 0 1.09 93 0 20.42Vanderhave H46177 319 109 0 6095.77 119 0.02 1.07 92 0 19.23Vanderhave H68108 271.8 93 0 5011.1 98 0.81 1.25 106 0.01 18.47Check Mean 293.2 5114.47 1.17 17.34Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.76 16.39 4.52 15.37F Value 3.90** 10.26** 3.97** 8.38**Mean LSD (0.05) 20.29 7 1210.75 24 0.08 7 3.92Mean LSD (0.01) 26.89 9 1604.36 31 0.1 9 5.19

Click forMain Menu

21

eld (T/A)Test P-Valean

101 0.94114 0.09102 0.79146 0

88 0.14102 0.83

91 0.28123 0142 0

81 0.0299 0.9288 0.1469 096 0.6260 0

102 0.8373 0

128 0146 0

80 0.0162 089 0.18

127 0103 0.7171 089 0.1691 0.25

118 0.03111 0.17106 0.41

2330

22

5605 DeGraff/Bosch (Continued)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. – TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 2200 blend 15.47 98 0.28 34.38 103 0.86 57.1 96 0.43 1.91 98 0.9Beta 3820 15.68 99 0.66 26.75 80 0.22 52.3 88 0.02 1.6 82 0.36Beta 3945 16.16 102 0.32 26.75 80 0.22 58.9 99 0.86 2.86 146 0.02Beta 4811R 16.66 105 0.01 33 99 0.94 54 91 0.08 1.57 80 0.32Beta 5296 15.34 97 0.14 37.15 111 0.49 60.9 103 0.62 3.17 162 0Beta 6863 16.5 104 0.04 33.68 101 0.96 59.6 100 0.96 1.6 82 0.35Beta 6904 16.26 103 0.19 32.98 99 0.94 61.3 103 0.53 2.23 114 0.48Beta BX960 16.82 106 0 32.65 98 0.89 66.4 112 0.02 1.5 76 0.23Beta M930 16.61 105 0.02 22.9 69 0.05 55.6 94 0.2 1.32 67 0.1Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 16.23 103 0.22 35.08 105 0.76 61.6 104 0.48 1.77 90 0.62Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 15.71 99 0.73 41.65 125 0.13 67.9 114 0.01 2.17 111 0.58Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 15.83 100 1 36.45 109 0.57 63.1 106 0.22 1.78 91 0.64Crystal 309 15.75 100 0.81 34.03 102 0.91 62.6 105 0.3 2.2 112 0.53Crystal 952 15.82 100 0.97 25.7 77 0.15 47.7 80 0 1.49 76 0.23Crystal 9744 14.91 94 0.01 21.53 64 0.03 60.8 102 0.66 2.35 120 0.31Crystal 999 14.98 95 0.01 30.9 92 0.64 52.5 88 0.02 1.93 99 0.94Hilleshog 7057 15.18 96 0.05 30.2 90 0.55 60.1 101 0.83 2.67 136 0.07Hilleshog 7073 16.19 102 0.28 35.78 107 0.66 63.5 107 0.18 0.81 41 0Hilleshog 7083 16.36 103 0.11 34.2 102 0.88 61.2 103 0.56 1.13 57 0.03Hilleshog Hector 15.9 100 0.83 44.45 133 0.04 68.2 115 0 2.01 103 0.9Hilleshog Resist 15.1 95 0.03 38.55 115 0.34 68.3 115 0 3.04 155 0.01Hilleshog RH5 15 95 0.01 49 147 0 63.7 107 0.16 1.74 89 0.58Holly Hybrid 99HX975 15.92 101 0.78 14.25 43 0 34.4 58 0 1.43 73 0.17Holly Hybrid LM1000 16.1 102 0.41 36.78 110 0.53 67.4 113 0.01 1.94 99 0.95Seedex Laser 14.89 94 0.01 38.2 114 0.37 56 94 0.25 2.24 114 0.47Seedex SX1020 15.02 95 0.02 36.48 109 0.57 51.8 87 0.01 1.99 102 0.93Vanderhave H46109 15.75 99 0.81 34.35 103 0.86 63.4 107 0.19 2.63 134 0.08Vanderhave H46140 16.86 107 0 33.35 100 0.99 62.3 105 0.35 1.83 93 0.73Vanderhave H46177 17.02 108 0 39.6 119 0.25 65 109 0.07 1.95 99 0.98Vanderhave H68108 14.84 94 0 31.58 95 0.73 55.9 94 0.24 1.92 98 0.91Check Mean 15.83 33.41 59.5 1.96Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.07 32.59 9.67 39.88F Value 3.89** 1.59ns 5.40** 1.92*Mean LSD (0.05) 0.94 6 15.31 46 8.61 14 1.1 56Mean LSD (0.01) 1.24 8 20.28 61 11.4 19 1.45 74

* Significant at 5%. ** Significant at 1%. Ns Not significant. 2nd column for each trait is percent of check. General Mean used as check.Mean LSD is only appropriate for comparing entry means with 3rd column for trait is probability that detection of a diff. (from check mean) Each other when F value is significant. of this size due to chance.

23

5606 Maynard - Luschen/NobleAMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice

Rec/T (lbs) Rec/A (lbs) Loss to Mol. Yield (T/A)Entry Mean % P-Val Mean % P-Val Mean % P-Val Mean % P-ValBeta 2200 blend 289.05 105 0.21 9750.37 120 0.01 1.19 97 0.28 34.71 118 0.02Beta 3820 298.68 108 0.03 8520.55 105 0.54 1.15 93 0.03 28.99 99 0.85Beta 3945 293.24 106 0.1 8430.24 104 0.64 1.17 95 0.08 28.44 97 0.66Beta 4811R 294.44 107 0.08 10633.7 131 0 1.16 94 0.06 35.55 121 0.01Beta 5296 277.12 100 0.93 7388.32 91 0.25 1.23 100 1 27.45 93 0.38Beta 6863 286.49 104 0.32 9594.48 118 0.02 1.19 97 0.27 33.53 114 0.06Beta 6904 284.06 103 0.44 7219.91 89 0.16 1.2 98 0.44 25.49 87 0.08Beta BX960 292.95 106 0.1 9613.95 118 0.02 1.17 95 0.1 32.64 111 0.14Beta M930 278.77 101 0.81 9707.16 119 0.02 1.23 100 0.9 35.46 121 0.01Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 278.71 101 0.81 7292.46 90 0.2 1.23 100 0.94 25.16 86 0.06Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 282.23 102 0.56 9552.49 118 0.03 1.21 98 0.56 33.47 114 0.07Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 283.78 103 0.46 7965.63 98 0.8 1.21 98 0.44 28.67 98 0.74Crystal 309 261.44 95 0.15 7072.02 87 0.1 1.29 105 0.13 26.91 92 0.26Crystal 952 269.05 97 0.48 8388.78 103 0.69 1.26 102 0.42 31.43 107 0.36Crystal 9744 262.25 95 0.17 6035.54 74 0 1.28 104 0.18 23.71 81 0.01Crystal 999 285.42 103 0.37 9543.6 117 0.03 1.2 97 0.39 33.61 114 0.06Hilleshog 7057 261.81 95 0.16 6371.85 78 0.01 1.28 104 0.16 23.57 80 0.01Hilleshog 7073 257.01 93 0.06 8084.42 99 0.95 1.3 106 0.06 31.26 106 0.4Hilleshog 7083 280.16 101 0.7 8659.89 107 0.41 1.22 99 0.65 30.92 105 0.49Hilleshog Hector 275.27 100 0.92 6843.12 84 0.05 1.24 101 0.85 24.65 84 0.03Hilleshog Resist 264.94 96 0.27 7415.3 91 0.27 1.27 103 0.26 27.99 95 0.52Hilleshog RH5 259.57 94 0.1 7242.83 89 0.17 1.29 105 0.12 27.48 93 0.38Holly Hybrid 99HX975 252.23 91 0.02 7333.24 90 0.22 1.31 106 0.04 28.51 97 0.68Holly Hybrid LM1000 267.81 97 0.4 8463.59 104 0.6 1.27 103 0.3 31.48 107 0.35Seedex Laser 249.99 90 0.01 5595.38 69 0 1.32 107 0.02 21.62 74 0Seedex SX1020 279.12 101 0.78 7199.81 89 0.15 1.23 100 0.91 27.07 92 0.29Vanderhave H46109 263.78 95 0.22 8231.51 101 0.87 1.28 104 0.2 31.61 108 0.32Vanderhave H46140 292.64 106 0.11 8907.58 110 0.23 1.17 95 0.1 30.6 104 0.58Vanderhave H46177 296.25 107 0.05 8155.92 100 0.97 1.16 94 0.05 27.46 93 0.38Vanderhave H68108 270.42 98 0.56 8625.15 106 0.44 1.25 101 0.62 32.61 111 0.15Check Mean 276.29 8127.96 1.23 29.4Coeff. of Var. (%) 6.98 15.87 5.64 14.34F Value 1.84* 3.49** 1.80* 2.88**Mean LSD (0.05) 28.96 10 1833.21 23 0.1 8 6.26 21Mean LSD (0.01) 38.4 14 2429.25 30 0.14 11 8.3 28

24

5606 Maynard - Luschen/Noble (Continued)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice

Sugar % Emergence 1 Emergence 2 TareEntry Mean % P-Val Mean % P-Val Mean % P-Val Mean % P-ValBeta 2200 blend 15.65 104 0.21 38.05 108 0.23 47.67 100 0.95 2.55 87 0.54Beta 3820 16.09 107 0.03 28.5 81 0 49.77 104 0.32 2.13 72 0.2Beta 3945 15.83 105 0.1 38.09 108 0.22 50.45 106 0.18 2.5 85 0.48Beta 4811R 15.89 106 0.08 38.27 108 0.19 49.4 103 0.42 1.72 58 0.06Beta 5296 15.09 100 0.93 44.03 125 0 55.32 116 0 3.1 105 0.8Beta 6863 15.52 103 0.32 29.43 83 0.01 39.35 82 0 2.35 80 0.35Beta 6904 15.41 102 0.45 39.73 113 0.05 54.25 114 0 4.1 139 0.07Beta BX960 15.82 105 0.1 33.9 96 0.54 51.5 108 0.06 2.63 89 0.62Beta M930 15.17 101 0.8 40.95 116 0.01 49.75 104 0.32 2.62 89 0.61Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 15.17 101 0.8 21.19 60 0 44.55 93 0.1 3 102 0.94Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 15.32 102 0.56 32.5 92 0.22 44.55 93 0.1 3.07 104 0.84Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 15.39 102 0.46 43.98 125 0 48.72 102 0.64 3.02 103 0.91Crystal 309 14.36 95 0.15 28.42 80 0 44.9 94 0.15 2.97 101 0.97Crystal 952 14.72 98 0.48 39.94 113 0.04 48.37 101 0.77 2.9 98 0.94Crystal 9744 14.39 96 0.17 30.2 86 0.03 42.47 89 0.01 3.3 112 0.58Crystal 999 15.47 103 0.37 34.98 99 0.88 53.22 111 0.01 3.04 103 0.89Hilleshog 7057 14.38 96 0.16 26.19 74 0 39.32 82 0 2.57 87 0.56Hilleshog 7073 14.15 94 0.06 36.07 102 0.74 49.77 104 0.32 2.12 72 0.2Hilleshog 7083 15.23 101 0.71 41.72 118 0.01 48.35 101 0.78 2.27 77 0.29Hilleshog Hector 15 100 0.93 35.42 100 0.96 46.97 98 0.68 3.84 130 0.16Hilleshog Resist 14.52 96 0.27 39.36 111 0.08 55.65 116 0 2.13 72 0.2Hilleshog RH5 14.27 95 0.1 36.78 104 0.52 43.87 92 0.05 3.18 108 0.72Holly Hybrid 99HX975 13.92 93 0.02 34.85 99 0.84 37.25 78 0 2.84 96 0.86Holly Hybrid LM1000 14.66 97 0.41 35.44 100 0.95 49.75 104 0.32 5.17 175 0Seedex Laser 13.82 92 0.01 32.05 91 0.15 39.7 83 0 4.42 150 0.02Seedex SX1020 15.19 101 0.77 40.36 114 0.03 52.87 111 0.01 3.43 116 0.45Vanderhave H46109 14.47 96 0.22 39.37 112 0.08 48.37 101 0.77 2.26 77 0.28Vanderhave H46140 15.8 105 0.11 43.51 123 0 53.55 112 0 2.94 100 0.99Vanderhave H46177 15.97 106 0.05 23.79 67 0 46.27 97 0.45 2.87 97 0.9Vanderhave H68108 14.77 98 0.56 32.2 91 0.17 47.67 100 0.95 3.39 115 0.49Check Mean 15.05 35.31 47.79 2.95Coeff. of Var. (%) 5.95 12.91 8.41 43.61F Value 1.84* 6.58** 5.85** 1.27nsMean LSD (0.05) 1.34 9 6.48 18 5.65 12 1.82 62Mean LSD (0.01) 1.78 12 8.59 24 7.49 16 2.41 82

* Significant at 5%. ** Significant at 1%. Ns Not significant. 2nd column for each trait is percent of check. General Mean used as check.Mean LSD is only appropriate for comparing entry means with 3rd column for trait is probability that detection of a diff. (from check mean) Each other when F value is significant. of this size due to chance.

25

5607 Bird Island/RudeenAMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. – TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 2200 blend 283.8 102 0.47 4536.44 112 0.16 1.21 98 0.46 16.08 111 0.22Beta 3820 286.3 103 0.28 3766.79 93 0.41 1.2 98 0.29 13.25 91 0.3Beta 3945 296.7 106 0.01 4286.94 106 0.5 1.16 95 0.01 14.59 100 0.96Beta 4811R 284.6 102 0.4 5801.35 143 0 1.21 98 0.46 20.39 140 0Beta 5296 286.4 103 0.27 3869.56 95 0.59 1.2 98 0.25 13.6 94 0.45Beta 6863 284.7 102 0.4 4113.08 101 0.86 1.2 98 0.41 14.48 100 0.96Beta 6904 276.2 99 0.7 3679.87 91 0.28 1.23 101 0.8 13.28 91 0.32Beta BX960 293.8 105 0.03 5223.55 129 0 1.17 96 0.04 17.9 123 0.01Beta M930 284.3 102 0.43 5960.13 147 0 1.21 99 0.55 21.1 145 0Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 281.7 101 0.68 3469.76 86 0.09 1.22 100 0.87 12.4 85 0.09Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 276 99 0.67 4205.18 104 0.66 1.24 101 0.61 15.13 104 0.63Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 278 100 0.9 3778.85 93 0.43 1.23 100 0.88 13.75 95 0.53Crystal 309 270.1 97 0.2 3481.02 86 0.1 1.26 103 0.22 12.8 88 0.17Crystal 952 297.6 107 0.01 4225.48 104 0.62 1.15 94 0 14.26 98 0.82Crystal 9744 279.2 100 0.96 3919.9 97 0.7 1.23 100 0.97 14.03 97 0.69Crystal 999 286.3 103 0.28 3977.22 98 0.83 1.2 98 0.23 13.86 95 0.59Hilleshog 7057 277.6 100 0.86 3167.43 78 0.01 1.22 100 0.95 11.12 77 0.01Hilleshog 7073 283.1 102 0.53 4271.13 105 0.53 1.21 99 0.63 15.16 104 0.62Hilleshog 7083 264.1 95 0.03 3921.82 97 0.7 1.28 104 0.04 14.98 103 0.72Hilleshog Hector 288.6 104 0.16 4055.73 100 0.99 1.19 97 0.14 13.97 96 0.65Hilleshog Resist 274.2 98 0.5 3543.41 87 0.14 1.25 102 0.44 12.78 88 0.16Hilleshog RH5 274.5 98 0.52 3499.22 86 0.11 1.24 101 0.48 12.71 87 0.15Holly Hybrid 99HX975 254.9 91 0 3176.04 78 0.01 1.3 106 0 12.48 86 0.1Holly Hybrid LM1000 272.4 98 0.34 4096.52 101 0.9 1.25 102 0.35 15.06 104 0.68Seedex Laser 275.7 99 0.64 3154.91 78 0.01 1.24 102 0.45 11.49 79 0.02Seedex SX1020 259.3 93 0.01 3420.53 84 0.07 1.29 105 0.01 13.3 91 0.32Vanderhave H46109 270.3 97 0.21 4013.01 99 0.91 1.26 103 0.13 14.89 102 0.78Vanderhave H46140 274.4 98 0.51 4324.26 107 0.43 1.24 101 0.48 15.83 109 0.3Vanderhave H46177 291.1 104 0.08 4431.78 109 0.27 1.18 96 0.07 15.18 104 0.6Vanderhave H68108 260 93 0.01 4223.59 104 0.62 1.29 106 0.01 16.24 112 0.17Check Mean 278.9 4053.15 1.23 14.54Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.77 17.02 4 17.02F Value 2.34** 3.74** 2.21** 3.16**Mean LSD (0.05) 19.52 7 979.73 24 0.07 6 3.56 24Mean LSD (0.01) 25.87 9 1298.22 32 0.1 8 4.72 32

26

5607 Bird Island/Rudeen (Continued)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 2200 blend 15.4 102 0.47 40.53 106 0.44 37.6 104 0.67 2.55 99 0.96Beta 3820 15.51 102 0.28 34.88 92 0.31 33.2 92 0.32 1.51 58 0.03Beta 3945 15.99 105 0.01 39.92 105 0.56 35.9 99 0.9 2.8 109 0.64Beta 4811R 15.44 102 0.4 41.95 110 0.23 41.6 115 0.09 1.95 76 0.2Beta 5296 15.52 102 0.27 36.41 96 0.6 34.6 95 0.58 3.34 130 0.11Beta 6863 15.44 102 0.4 35.38 93 0.4 37.8 104 0.62 2.64 103 0.89Beta 6904 15.04 99 0.69 31.78 83 0.05 29.8 82 0.04 2.51 98 0.9Beta BX960 15.86 105 0.03 43.2 113 0.11 41.7 115 0.09 2.01 78 0.24Beta M930 15.43 102 0.42 40.41 106 0.47 39 107 0.39 1.95 76 0.19Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 15.3 101 0.67 41.5 109 0.29 43 118 0.03 2.94 114 0.44Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 15.04 99 0.68 40.17 105 0.51 35.2 97 0.72 3.21 125 0.19Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 15.13 100 0.9 33.79 89 0.18 31.8 88 0.15 2.62 102 0.92Crystal 309 14.76 97 0.2 43.36 114 0.1 40.7 112 0.16 3.33 130 0.11Crystal 952 16.03 106 0.01 28.2 74 0 27.5 76 0.01 2.45 95 0.79Crystal 9744 15.19 100 0.95 48.9 128 0 49.5 136 0 3.68 143 0.02Crystal 999 15.51 102 0.28 29.8 78 0.01 28.6 79 0.01 2.66 103 0.86Hilleshog 7057 15.1 100 0.84 45 118 0.03 44.4 122 0.01 2.14 83 0.36Hilleshog 7073 15.37 101 0.53 40.35 106 0.48 35.8 99 0.88 2.05 80 0.28Hilleshog 7083 14.49 95 0.03 34.54 91 0.27 32.1 89 0.18 2.33 91 0.61Hilleshog Hector 15.62 103 0.16 34.61 91 0.28 33.9 93 0.44 1.6 62 0.04Hilleshog Resist 14.96 99 0.5 45.85 120 0.02 43.4 119 0.03 1.7 66 0.07Hilleshog RH5 14.97 99 0.53 36.51 96 0.62 34.1 94 0.48 2.04 79 0.27Holly Hybrid 99HX975 14.04 93 0 27.12 71 0 26 72 0 2.55 99 0.96Holly Hybrid LM1000 14.87 98 0.34 45.84 120 0.02 41.4 114 0.1 3.27 127 0.15Seedex Laser 15.03 99 0.66 38.35 101 0.94 35.9 99 0.91 2.39 93 0.7Seedex SX1020 14.25 94 0 35.64 94 0.44 33.6 93 0.39 3.25 126 0.16Vanderhave H46109 14.78 97 0.22 35.22 92 0.37 37 102 0.82 3.56 138 0.04Vanderhave H46140 14.96 99 0.52 41.76 110 0.25 35.4 98 0.77 3.04 118 0.33Vanderhave H46177 15.74 104 0.08 38.33 101 0.94 37.7 104 0.66 2.92 113 0.47Vanderhave H68108 14.29 94 0.01 33.37 88 0.14 30.8 85 0.08 2.21 86 0.45Check Mean 15.17 38.09 36.3 2.57Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.07 16.26 17 37.32F Value 2.35** 2.81** 2.91** 1.49nsMean LSD (0.05) 0.9 6 9.06 24 8.85 24 1.36 53Mean LSD (0.01) 1.2 8 12.01 32 11.7 32 1.8 70


27

5608 Fischer/Buffalo LakeAMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. – TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 2200 blend 310.2 98 0.48 5871.24 97 0.74 1.12 102 0.39 18.7 98 0.82Beta 3820 325 103 0.27 6564.66 109 0.3 1.05 96 0.16 20.52 108 0.34Beta 3945 335.8 106 0.02 6010.03 100 0.95 1.03 95 0.03 18.21 96 0.58Beta 4811R 325.7 103 0.23 10615.3 176 0 1.05 96 0.13 32.9 173 0Beta 5296 312.2 99 0.65 5604.49 93 0.39 1.1 100 0.86 18.13 95 0.55Beta 6863 318.2 101 0.78 5288.95 88 0.14 1.08 99 0.66 16.38 86 0.08Beta 6904 326 103 0.22 4816.45 80 0.02 1.06 97 0.22 14.8 78 0.01Beta BX960 325.7 103 0.23 8274.97 137 0 1.06 97 0.29 25.47 134 0Beta M930 332.6 105 0.04 9020.75 149 0 1.04 95 0.04 26.97 142 0Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 295.7 94 0.01 4134.01 68 0 1.16 106 0.02 14.18 74 0Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 305.1 97 0.18 6890.65 114 0.1 1.12 103 0.26 22.67 119 0.02Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 327.2 104 0.17 4650.91 77 0.01 1.04 95 0.07 14.33 75 0Crystal 309 300.9 95 0.07 5973.45 99 0.9 1.14 104 0.11 19.88 104 0.59Crystal 952 319.6 101 0.66 6254.83 104 0.67 1.07 98 0.49 19.91 104 0.58Crystal 9744 300.4 95 0.06 3483.62 58 0 1.15 105 0.06 11.27 59 0Crystal 999 316.3 100 0.96 6554.83 109 0.31 1.09 100 0.92 20.9 110 0.23Hilleshog 7057 298.5 94 0.03 3555.37 59 0 1.14 105 0.06 12.13 64 0Hilleshog 7073 334.3 106 0.03 7868.04 130 0 1.03 94 0.03 23.44 123 0.01Hilleshog 7083 323.2 102 0.38 6875.6 114 0.1 1.07 98 0.38 21.28 112 0.15Hilleshog Hector 310.5 98 0.5 4646.06 77 0.01 1.11 102 0.48 14.9 78 0.01Hilleshog Resist 294.7 93 0.01 3695.86 61 0 1.18 108 0 12.04 63 0Hilleshog RH5 283.3 90 0 4200.66 70 0 1.21 111 0 15.01 79 0.01Holly Hybrid 99HX975 298.1 94 0.03 6548.96 108 0.32 1.15 105 0.06 22.05 116 0.05Holly Hybrid LM1000 329.9 104 0.09 6256.56 104 0.67 1.04 95 0.06 19.08 100 0.99Seedex Laser 287.7 91 0 4265.41 71 0 1.19 109 0 15 79 0.01Seedex SX1020 294.6 93 0.01 5709.39 95 0.52 1.18 108 0 19.09 100 0.98Vanderhave H46109 323.7 102 0.34 5721.15 95 0.53 1.06 97 0.22 17.65 93 0.36Vanderhave H46140 351 111 0 6711.54 111 0.19 1 92 0 19.32 101 0.87Vanderhave H46177 351.1 111 0 8512.23 141 0 1 91 0 24.79 130 0Vanderhave H68108 321.5 102 0.5 6589.17 109 0.28 1.06 97 0.31 20.76 109 0.27Check Mean 316 6038.84 1.09 19.06Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.94 16.1 5.02 15.14F Value 4.43** 10.82** 4.16** 9.73**Mean LSD (0.05) 23.15 7 1450.07 24 0.08 7 4.38 23Mean LSD (0.01) 30.68 10 1922.24 32 0.1 10 5.81 30

28

5608 Fischer/Buffalo Lake (Continued)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. – TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 2200 blend 16.62 98 0.48 31.4 94 0.68 71.5 117 0.05 4.45 125 0.11Beta 3820 17.3 102 0.28 34.16 102 0.9 58.3 95 0.56 2.11 59 0.01Beta 3945 17.82 106 0.02 32.89 98 0.91 58 95 0.52 3.62 102 0.91Beta 4811R 17.34 103 0.24 26.36 79 0.16 57.7 94 0.48 1.95 55 0Beta 5296 16.71 99 0.63 41.88 125 0.1 70.1 114 0.09 4.55 128 0.08Beta 6863 16.99 101 0.79 31.7 95 0.72 56.9 93 0.39 5.22 147 0Beta 6904 17.36 103 0.22 30.17 90 0.51 54.2 88 0.17 4.55 128 0.07Beta BX960 17.35 103 0.23 31.26 93 0.66 63.2 103 0.72 2 56 0.01Beta M930 17.67 105 0.04 47.29 141 0.01 60.8 99 0.91 2.31 65 0.03Blank 1 (Hilleshog 7057) 15.94 94 0.01 29.87 89 0.48 59.4 97 0.7 3.11 87 0.42Blank 2 (Vanderhave H46109) 16.38 97 0.18 38.78 116 0.3 63.2 103 0.71 4.05 114 0.38Blank 3 (Beta 6904) 17.4 103 0.18 29.32 88 0.41 59 96 0.65 4.01 113 0.41Crystal 309 16.18 96 0.07 28.92 86 0.37 60.5 99 0.86 5.29 149 0Crystal 952 17.05 101 0.67 32.81 98 0.89 59 96 0.65 4.02 113 0.4Crystal 9744 16.16 96 0.06 25.4 76 0.11 52.8 86 0.1 5.05 142 0.01Crystal 999 16.91 100 0.97 37.65 112 0.41 52.1 85 0.08 3.4 95 0.77Hilleshog 7057 16.07 95 0.03 31.87 95 0.75 65.6 107 0.41 4.24 119 0.22Hilleshog 7073 17.74 105 0.03 41.48 124 0.12 66.7 109 0.3 2.46 69 0.05Hilleshog 7083 17.23 102 0.38 38.26 114 0.35 55.6 91 0.26 2.25 63 0.02Hilleshog Hector 16.64 98 0.5 38.17 114 0.36 68.1 111 0.2 4.13 116 0.3Hilleshog Resist 15.91 94 0.01 28.87 86 0.36 61.8 101 0.93 3.96 111 0.48Hilleshog RH5 15.38 91 0 34.48 103 0.85 70.2 114 0.09 3.54 99 0.97Holly Hybrid 99HX975 16.05 95 0.03 28.68 86 0.34 64.6 105 0.53 1.97 55 0.01Holly Hybrid LM1000 17.54 104 0.09 35.53 106 0.69 63.2 103 0.72 3.73 105 0.75Seedex Laser 15.57 92 0 33.86 101 0.94 69.1 113 0.14 4.35 122 0.16Seedex SX1020 15.91 94 0.01 38.41 115 0.33 62.3 101 0.86 3.5 98 0.91Vanderhave H46109 17.24 102 0.35 28.32 85 0.31 57 93 0.4 4.15 116 0.29Vanderhave H46140 18.55 110 0 28.51 85 0.33 65.3 106 0.45 3.49 98 0.9Vanderhave H46177 18.55 110 0 35.84 107 0.64 59 96 0.65 2.81 79 0.18Vanderhave H68108 17.14 101 0.51 32.62 97 0.86 55.2 90 0.24 2.52 71 0.06Check Mean 16.89 33.49 61.3 3.56Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.31 29.19 17.1 31.54F Value 4.45** 0.96ns 1.04ns 3.21**Mean LSD (0.05) 1.08 6 14.45 43 14.7 24 1.58 44Mean LSD (0.01) 1.43 8 19.16 57 19.5 32 2.09 59


5611 Hector/WehkingAMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Non-D30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice

Rec/T (lbs) Rec/A (lbs) Loss to Mol. YEntry Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean

Mean Mean MeanBeta 4811R 259.28 95 0.02 5915.3 100 0.94 1.3 104 0.03 22.61Beta 6904 282.88 103 0.15 6547.8 111 0.04 1.21 97 0.16 23.19Beta BM0901 265.68 97 0.2 6430 109 0.09 1.28 103 0.15 24.28Beta BM0902 266.76 97 0.26 6357.9 108 0.14 1.27 102 0.21 23.93Beta M813 283.37 103 0.13 6652.6 113 0.02 1.21 97 0.13 23.65Beta M815 274.9 100 0.86 6627 112 0.02 1.24 100 0.88 23.98Beta M932 293.86 107 0 6428.8 109 0.09 1.17 94 0 21.94Crystal 921 290.26 106 0.01 6184.8 105 0.35 1.18 95 0.01 21.38Crystal 956 283.23 103 0.13 7308.3 124 0 1.21 97 0.13 25.65Crystal R828 260.27 95 0.03 5195.4 88 0.03 1.29 104 0.04 19.94Crystal R932 267.47 98 0.31 5766.5 98 0.69 1.27 102 0.28 21.59Crystal RZT010 248.9 91 0 4581.4 78 0 1.33 107 0 18.41Hilleshog 1643 277.14 101 0.59 5563.4 94 0.3 1.23 99 0.51 20.09Hilleshog 7089 277.07 101 0.6 6318.3 107 0.18 1.24 99 0.72 22.92Hilleshog 7097 277.48 101 0.56 6334.2 108 0.16 1.23 99 0.6 22.83Hilleshog 7101 281.73 103 0.21 6324.7 107 0.17 1.22 98 0.19 22.34Hilleshog 7108 259.89 95 0.03 5125 87 0.02 1.3 104 0.02 19.57Hilleshog 7111 281.05 103 0.25 5403.4 92 0.12 1.22 98 0.22 19.44Hilleshog 7114 281.39 103 0.23 6311.1 107 0.19 1.22 98 0.21 22.47Hilleshog 7118 281.49 103 0.22 5171.6 88 0.02 1.21 98 0.17 18.19Hilleshog 7120 262.16 96 0.06 5631.6 96 0.41 1.29 104 0.05 21.28Hilleshog 7121 265.98 97 0.21 5601.1 95 0.36 1.28 103 0.13 21.17Holly Hybrid 00HX019 280.89 103 0.26 5969.4 101 0.8 1.22 98 0.25 21.15Holly Hybrid 00HX026 286.16 105 0.05 5750.1 98 0.65 1.2 96 0.04 20.04Holly Hybrid 00HX027 260.21 95 0.03 4224.3 72 0 1.28 103 0.16 16.12Seedex SX1017 279.29 102 0.38 5374.1 91 0.1 1.23 99 0.53 19.31Seedex SX1019 282.89 103 0.15 5899.7 100 0.98 1.21 97 0.16 20.69Vanderhave H46109 278.58 102 0.44 6087.4 103 0.53 1.23 99 0.55 21.76Vanderhave H68108 253.15 92 0 5592.4 95 0.34 1.32 106 0 22.35Vanderhave H68211 270.8 99 0.63 6068.1 103 0.58 1.26 101 0.5 22.32Check Mean 273.81 5891.5 1.25 21.49Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.29 9.96 3.42 9.99F Value 3.32** 4.31** 3.38** 3.24**Mean LSD (0.05) 17.81 7 899.43 15 0.06 5 3.23Mean LSD (0.01) 23.61 9 1192.9 20 0.09 7 4.28

Click forMain Menu

29

isease)

ield (T/A)%Test P-ValMean

105 0.32108 0.14113 0.02111 0.03110 0.06112 0.03102 0.6999 0.92

119 093 0.18

100 0.9386 0.0194 0.22

107 0.21106 0.24104 0.4591 0.0990 0.07

105 0.3985 099 0.8599 0.7898 0.7793 0.275 090 0.0696 0.48

101 0.81104 0.45104 0.46

1520

30

5611 Hector/Wehking (Continued)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Non-Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice

Sugar % Vigor Emergence TareEntry Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val

Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 4811R 14.26 95 0.02 49.38 102 0.84 75.33 97 0.54 3.42 109 0.63Beta 6904 15.36 103 0.15 50.35 104 0.68 79.5 102 0.6 2.89 93 0.71Beta BM0901 14.56 98 0.2 58.55 121 0.03 87.13 112 0.01 3.16 101 0.96Beta BM0902 14.61 98 0.27 54.29 112 0.21 76.4 98 0.75 3.37 108 0.7Beta M813 15.38 103 0.13 52.01 107 0.44 78.13 101 0.88 2.87 92 0.67Beta M815 14.99 100 0.86 53.52 110 0.27 74.3 96 0.38 3.98 127 0.17Beta M932 15.86 106 0 36.14 75 0.01 76.05 98 0.68 4.07 130 0.13Crystal 921 15.7 105 0.01 55.48 115 0.13 86.1 111 0.02 2.53 81 0.33Crystal 956 15.37 103 0.13 48.9 101 0.92 85.43 110 0.04 2.97 95 0.8Crystal R828 14.31 96 0.03 53.55 111 0.27 84.03 108 0.08 3.59 115 0.46Crystal R932 14.64 98 0.31 47.71 98 0.87 72.93 94 0.21 5.43 174 0Crystal RZT010 13.78 92 0 39.42 81 0.05 72.93 94 0.21 2.48 79 0.3Hilleshog 1643 15.09 101 0.6 53.11 110 0.31 73.6 95 0.28 3.61 115 0.44Hilleshog 7089 15.09 101 0.59 55.98 116 0.1 82.65 107 0.17 2.5 80 0.31Hilleshog 7097 15.11 101 0.55 50.58 104 0.64 77.78 100 0.96 2.39 76 0.24Hilleshog 7101 15.3 102 0.21 46.43 96 0.66 81.6 105 0.28 2 64 0.07Hilleshog 7108 14.29 96 0.03 49.7 103 0.79 77.8 100 0.95 3.13 100 1Hilleshog 7111 15.27 102 0.25 54.45 112 0.19 79.18 102 0.66 1.6 51 0.02Hilleshog 7114 15.29 102 0.23 54.23 112 0.21 84.73 109 0.06 2.32 74 0.19Hilleshog 7118 15.29 102 0.22 56.77 117 0.07 81.28 105 0.32 2.39 76 0.24Hilleshog 7120 14.4 96 0.07 38.58 80 0.03 70.5 91 0.06 1.8 57 0.03Hilleshog 7121 14.58 98 0.22 33.8 70 0 69.13 89 0.02 2.73 87 0.52Holly Hybrid 00HX019 15.26 102 0.26 49.6 102 0.8 75.38 97 0.55 3.66 117 0.39Holly Hybrid 00HX026 15.51 104 0.05 51.21 106 0.55 80.93 104 0.36 2.93 94 0.75Holly Hybrid 00HX027 14.29 96 0.03 40.59 84 0.09 62.83 81 0 2.48 79 0.3Seedex SX1017 15.2 102 0.37 56.65 117 0.08 87.13 112 0.01 5 160 0Seedex SX1019 15.36 103 0.15 20.57 42 0 49.33 64 0 3.89 124 0.22Vanderhave H46109 15.16 102 0.44 49.01 101 0.9 90.13 116 0 4.21 134 0.08Vanderhave H68108 13.98 94 0 44.47 92 0.39 78.13 101 0.88 2.53 81 0.34Vanderhave H68211 14.8 99 0.64 48.27 100 0.97 76.75 99 0.82 3.91 125 0.21Check Mean 14.94 48.44 77.57 3.13Coeff. of Var. (%) 3.65 17.42 9.66 40.17F Value 3.31** 3.17** 4.58** 2.01**Mean LSD (0.05) 0.83 6 13.15 27 10.53 14 1.77 56Mean LSD (0.01) 1.1 7 17.45 36 13.95 18 2.34 75


31

5612 Lake Lillian/SchmollAMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Non-Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 4811R 286.68 99 0.61 7361.9 112 0.05 1.2 102 0.57 25.68 114 0.01Beta 6904 285.28 98 0.5 5369.4 82 0 1.2 102 0.57 18.49 82 0Beta BM0901 277.52 95 0.11 7523.3 115 0.02 1.24 105 0.1 27.08 120 0Beta BM0902 289.84 100 0.9 6508.7 99 0.9 1.18 100 0.87 21.99 98 0.64Beta M813 305.92 105 0.08 7435.1 113 0.04 1.12 95 0.07 24.24 107 0.16Beta M815 300.94 103 0.24 7339.7 112 0.06 1.14 96 0.19 24.26 108 0.15Beta M932 308.57 106 0.04 6505.4 99 0.89 1.11 94 0.04 21.43 95 0.35Crystal 921 296.73 102 0.49 6202.2 95 0.38 1.16 98 0.44 20.69 92 0.12Crystal 956 289.88 100 0.9 7670.5 117 0.01 1.19 101 0.8 26.68 118 0Crystal R828 289.52 100 0.87 6405.8 98 0.7 1.18 100 0.94 21.78 97 0.52Crystal R932 295.32 102 0.6 6494.7 99 0.87 1.16 98 0.54 22.3 99 0.83Crystal RZT010 285.48 98 0.52 6517.2 99 0.91 1.2 102 0.58 22.39 99 0.89Hilleshog 1643 292.23 100 0.88 5586.6 85 0.02 1.18 99 0.84 19.38 86 0.01Hilleshog 7089 299.33 103 0.32 7553.2 115 0.02 1.15 97 0.28 25.04 111 0.04Hilleshog 7097 279.15 96 0.16 7131.1 109 0.17 1.22 103 0.22 25.42 113 0.02Hilleshog 7101 288.88 99 0.81 6551.3 100 0.98 1.19 101 0.77 23.14 103 0.62Hilleshog 7108 286.58 99 0.61 7129.4 109 0.17 1.19 101 0.72 24.99 111 0.04Hilleshog 7111 292.73 101 0.83 7125.9 109 0.17 1.17 99 0.75 23.9 106 0.26Hilleshog 7114 301.92 104 0.19 7060 108 0.22 1.19 101 0.86 23.27 103 0.55Hilleshog 7118 293.12 101 0.79 5313.9 81 0 1.17 99 0.79 18.54 82 0Hilleshog 7120 289.88 100 0.9 6741.1 103 0.66 1.18 100 0.99 23.01 102 0.7Hilleshog 7121 282.82 97 0.34 6765.5 103 0.62 1.22 103 0.28 23.74 105 0.32Holly Hybrid 00HX019 302.8 104 0.16 5732.1 87 0.05 1.14 96 0.19 19.22 85 0.01Holly Hybrid 00HX026 301.51 104 0.21 5928.8 90 0.12 1.14 96 0.2 19.5 86 0.01Holly Hybrid 00HX027 285.17 98 0.49 6323.1 96 0.56 1.2 102 0.51 22.13 98 0.72Seedex SX1017 296.56 102 0.5 5058.8 77 0 1.16 98 0.56 17.19 76 0Seedex SX1019 286.55 98 0.6 6565.5 100 0.99 1.2 101 0.68 22.95 102 0.74Vanderhave H46109 286.07 98 0.56 5864 89 0.09 1.2 102 0.56 20.39 90 0.07Vanderhave H68108 269.25 93 0.01 6639.4 101 0.85 1.26 106 0.02 24.66 109 0.08Vanderhave H68211 281.63 97 0.27 6425.5 98 0.74 1.22 103 0.26 23.07 102 0.66Check Mean 290.93 6561 1.18 22.55Coeff. of Var. (%) 5.68 11.46 5.49 9.73F Value 1.13ns 2.60** 1.02ns 4.03**Mean LSD (0.05) 24.02 8 1167.3 18 0.1 8 3.4 15Mean LSD (0.01) 31.83 11 1548.6 24 0.13 11 4.51 20

32

5612 Lake Lillian/Schmoll (Continued)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Non-Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 4811R 15.53 99 0.62 35.38 93 0.59 77.1 103 0.48 2.95 92 0.67Beta 6904 15.46 98 0.5 31.57 83 0.21 68.33 91 0.06 3.03 94 0.76Beta BM0901 15.11 96 0.12 49.99 131 0.03 79.15 106 0.19 2.34 73 0.15Beta BM0902 15.67 100 0.88 42.25 110 0.45 66.65 89 0.02 3.13 97 0.89Beta M813 16.42 104 0.08 42.16 110 0.46 69.11 92 0.1 2.94 92 0.66Beta M815 16.18 103 0.24 33.53 88 0.37 69.44 93 0.12 2.65 83 0.36Beta M932 16.54 105 0.04 31.97 84 0.23 67.77 91 0.04 3.19 99 0.97Crystal 921 15.99 102 0.5 41.3 108 0.56 69.43 93 0.12 3.51 109 0.62Crystal 956 15.68 100 0.91 40.58 106 0.66 82.97 111 0.02 1.5 47 0.01Crystal R828 15.66 100 0.85 39.54 103 0.8 81.62 109 0.04 4.25 132 0.09Crystal R932 15.93 101 0.61 40.23 105 0.71 71.88 96 0.39 2.92 91 0.63Crystal RZT010 15.47 98 0.51 27.58 72 0.05 60.38 81 0 3.26 102 0.94Hilleshog 1643 15.79 100 0.88 39.01 102 0.88 69.87 94 0.15 4.58 142 0.03Hilleshog 7089 16.11 102 0.33 47.75 125 0.07 80.86 108 0.07 2 62 0.05Hilleshog 7097 15.18 97 0.16 32.71 86 0.29 79.84 107 0.13 2.03 63 0.05Hilleshog 7101 15.64 99 0.82 40.58 106 0.66 84.72 113 0 3.22 100 0.99Hilleshog 7108 15.52 99 0.6 50.91 133 0.02 87.82 118 0 3.53 110 0.6Hilleshog 7111 15.81 100 0.84 52.63 138 0.01 78.16 105 0.3 2.02 63 0.05Hilleshog 7114 16.28 104 0.16 44.04 115 0.27 84.72 113 0 4.25 132 0.09Hilleshog 7118 15.83 101 0.79 37.67 99 0.91 79.53 106 0.15 3.4 106 0.76Hilleshog 7120 15.68 100 0.89 21.1 55 0 80.87 108 0.07 2.36 73 0.16Hilleshog 7121 15.36 98 0.34 31.55 82 0.21 64.23 86 0 3.36 105 0.81Holly Hybrid 00HX019 16.28 104 0.16 31.6 83 0.21 71.15 95 0.29 4.88 152 0.01Holly Hybrid 00HX026 16.21 103 0.21 41.74 109 0.51 81.59 109 0.04 5.81 181 0Holly Hybrid 00HX027 15.46 98 0.5 28.8 75 0.08 66.33 89 0.01 3.02 94 0.75Seedex SX1017 15.99 102 0.5 53.83 141 0 85.82 115 0 5.11 159 0Seedex SX1019 15.52 99 0.6 14.92 39 0 48.27 65 0 1.84 57 0.03Vanderhave H46109 15.5 99 0.57 36.47 95 0.74 86.75 116 0 4.82 150 0.01Vanderhave H68108 14.72 94 0.01 45.42 119 0.17 74.66 100 0.99 1.85 58 0.03Vanderhave H68211 15.3 97 0.27 40.37 106 0.69 72.59 97 0.52 2.62 82 0.33Check Mean 15.73 38.24 74.72 3.21Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.87 25.83 9.04 37.71F Value 1.13ns 2.79** 7.04** 3.07**Mean LSD (0.05) 1.11 7 15 39 9.52 13 1.73 54Mean LSD (0.01) 1.47 9 19.89 52 12.61 17 2.29 71


33

5613 Clara City/CondonAMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Non-Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 4811R 291.87 97 0.2 6089.3 108 0.22 1.17 103 0.22 20.74 111 0.06Beta 6904 311.85 103 0.18 5787.7 103 0.69 1.1 97 0.3 18.55 99 0.89Beta BM0901 298.65 99 0.69 6402.8 114 0.04 1.15 101 0.62 21.41 115 0.01Beta BM0902 304.17 101 0.74 6182.7 110 0.14 1.14 100 0.99 20.32 109 0.13Beta M813 298.45 99 0.67 5810.7 103 0.64 1.15 101 0.62 19.54 105 0.43Beta M815 286.53 95 0.05 5112.3 91 0.15 1.2 106 0.04 17.77 95 0.39Beta M932 307 102 0.48 5633.2 100 0.98 1.08 95 0.08 18.35 98 0.75Crystal 921 304.63 101 0.69 5068.6 90 0.12 1.13 99 0.78 16.62 89 0.06Crystal 956 301.66 100 1 5461 97 0.62 1.14 100 0.9 18.14 97 0.61Crystal R828 287.44 95 0.06 5710.5 101 0.85 1.19 105 0.09 19.8 106 0.3Crystal R932 303.83 101 0.77 5768.7 102 0.72 1.13 99 0.83 19.04 102 0.75Crystal RZT010 288.06 95 0.07 5272.2 93 0.31 1.19 105 0.08 18.39 98 0.77Hilleshog 1643 301.01 100 0.93 4933.8 87 0.05 1.09 96 0.19 16.34 87 0.03Hilleshog 7089 301.52 100 0.99 6330.8 112 0.06 1.14 100 0.91 21.08 113 0.03Hilleshog 7097 308.34 102 0.38 5988.3 106 0.34 1.11 98 0.43 19.4 104 0.51Hilleshog 7101 308.28 102 0.38 5981.5 106 0.35 1.11 98 0.46 19.38 104 0.52Hilleshog 7108 286.6 95 0.05 6185.8 110 0.14 1.2 105 0.05 21.62 116 0.01Hilleshog 7111 303.72 101 0.79 6230.9 110 0.11 1.13 100 0.92 20.39 109 0.12Hilleshog 7114 299.62 99 0.79 6273.4 111 0.08 1.15 101 0.68 20.94 112 0.04Hilleshog 7118 308.47 102 0.37 4750.5 84 0.02 1.11 98 0.48 15.26 82 0Hilleshog 7120 307.31 102 0.45 5226.7 93 0.25 1.11 98 0.5 16.99 91 0.11Hilleshog 7121 296.56 98 0.5 5189.6 92 0.22 1.16 102 0.41 17.43 93 0.24Holly Hybrid 00HX019 319.52 106 0.02 5714.6 101 0.84 1.05 92 0.01 17.91 96 0.47Holly Hybrid 00HX026 314.52 104 0.09 5778.9 102 0.7 1.09 96 0.13 18.35 98 0.75Holly Hybrid 00HX027 310.57 103 0.24 5574.5 99 0.85 1.11 97 0.35 17.83 95 0.42Seedex SX1017 310.09 103 0.27 5070.7 90 0.12 1.11 98 0.4 16.36 88 0.03Seedex SX1019 313.2 104 0.13 5580.8 99 0.87 1.09 96 0.17 17.7 95 0.36Vanderhave H46109 300.15 100 0.84 4908.6 87 0.05 1.14 101 0.76 16.29 87 0.03Vanderhave H68108 283.36 94 0.02 5529.9 98 0.76 1.21 107 0.01 19.52 104 0.44Vanderhave H68211 292.74 97 0.24 5675.6 101 0.92 1.17 103 0.29 19.32 103 0.56Check Mean 301.66 5640.8 1.14 18.69Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.95 12.81 5.45 11.42F Value 1.48ns 1.59ns 1.56ns 2.35**Mean LSD (0.05) 21.52 7 1033.4 18 0.09 8 3.06 16Mean LSD (0.01) 28.52 9 1369.3 24 0.12 10 4.06 22

34

5613 Clara City/Condon (Continued)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Non-Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta M815 15.77 97 0.2 30.38 100 0.99 50.81 81 0.01 1.38 69 0.17Hilleshog 7097 16.7 103 0.17 15.02 49 0.02 66.3 106 0.38 2.14 107 0.74Beta M813 16.08 99 0.7 47.95 157 0.01 70.39 113 0.07 1.81 90 0.67Holly Hybrid 00HX019 16.34 101 0.72 20.76 68 0.13 55.79 89 0.14 2.31 116 0.47Seedex SX1019 16.07 99 0.68 18.4 60 0.06 46.6 75 0 1.26 63 0.1Seedex SX1017 15.52 96 0.05 35.02 115 0.48 73.47 118 0.01 3.12 156 0.01Beta M932 16.43 101 0.54 22.94 75 0.24 56.78 91 0.21 2.44 122 0.31Beta BM0902 16.36 101 0.69 41.29 135 0.09 66.03 106 0.41 2.53 127 0.23Crystal RZT010 16.22 100 0.99 15.36 50 0.02 48.04 77 0 2.26 113 0.55Crystal R828 15.56 96 0.06 31.65 104 0.86 69.03 111 0.14 2.21 111 0.62Beta 4811R 16.32 101 0.77 40.08 131 0.14 59.16 95 0.47 2.13 107 0.75Holly Hybrid 00HX027 15.59 96 0.08 36.54 120 0.35 58.38 94 0.37 1.28 64 0.11Holly Hybrid 00HX026 16.14 100 0.83 39.52 130 0.16 67.29 108 0.27 2.57 129 0.2Hilleshog 7121 16.21 100 0.99 17.85 59 0.05 58.89 94 0.43 1.39 70 0.18Beta 6904 16.53 102 0.38 23.38 77 0.27 71.06 114 0.05 1.86 93 0.76Hilleshog 7120 16.53 102 0.38 14.24 47 0.01 62.13 100 0.95 1.88 94 0.79Hilleshog 7118 15.53 96 0.05 18.61 61 0.07 61.95 99 0.92 2.82 141 0.06Vanderhave H68211 16.32 101 0.77 21 69 0.14 57.45 92 0.27 1.78 89 0.63Hilleshog 7114 16.13 99 0.8 43.64 143 0.04 71.84 115 0.04 2.77 139 0.08Hilleshog 7108 16.54 102 0.36 48.85 160 0.01 67.96 109 0.21 2.46 123 0.29Vanderhave H68108 16.48 102 0.45 24.89 82 0.38 46.48 74 0 1.16 58 0.06Vanderhave H46109 15.99 99 0.51 31.87 104 0.83 74.37 119 0.01 3.14 157 0.01Beta BM0901 17.03 105 0.02 44.56 146 0.03 60.33 97 0.64 1.51 76 0.27Hilleshog 1643 16.81 104 0.09 27.65 91 0.66 62.01 99 0.93 2.02 101 0.96Hilleshog 7111 16.63 103 0.23 57.24 188 0 72.83 117 0.02 1.38 69 0.17Hilleshog 7089 16.61 102 0.26 28.23 93 0.72 72.12 116 0.03 1.6 80 0.38Crystal R932 16.75 103 0.13 23.67 78 0.29 53.01 85 0.04 1.22 61 0.08Crystal 956 16.15 100 0.85 25 82 0.39 63.42 102 0.82 1.96 98 0.94Hilleshog 7101 15.38 95 0.02 30.98 102 0.94 66.73 107 0.33 1.29 65 0.11Crystal 921 15.81 97 0.24 38.39 126 0.22 61.18 98 0.78 2.17 109 0.7Check Mean 16.22 30.5 62.39 2Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.26 41.57 14.13 45.1F Value 1.47ns 3.04** 3.31** 1.65*Mean LSD (0.05) 0.99 6 18.27 60 12.63 20 1.26 63Mean LSD (0.01) 1.32 8 24.2 79 16.73 27 1.68 84


35

5614 Montevideo/PayneAMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Non-Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta M815 320.81 99 0.72 9434.6 106 0.29 1.07 101 0.71 29.05 105 0.29Hilleshog 7097 323.65 100 0.99 8507.1 95 0.35 1.07 100 0.97 25.88 93 0.15Beta M813 328.65 102 0.55 9825.2 110 0.06 1.04 98 0.37 30.07 109 0.06Holly Hybrid 00HX019 348.5 108 0 8539.4 96 0.39 1 94 0.03 24.89 90 0.03Seedex SX1019 320.03 99 0.65 9084.7 102 0.76 1.07 101 0.69 27.83 100 0.92Seedex SX1017 333.39 103 0.24 8066 90 0.06 1.04 98 0.41 24.53 89 0.01Beta M932 339.54 105 0.06 9157.8 102 0.64 1.02 96 0.14 26.74 97 0.45Beta BM0902 336.15 104 0.13 8816.5 99 0.79 1.03 97 0.25 26.04 94 0.19Crystal RZT010 305.05 94 0.03 8290.7 93 0.17 1.09 102 0.32 26.8 97 0.47Crystal R828 308.81 95 0.07 8055.4 90 0.06 1.12 105 0.04 26.1 94 0.21Beta 4811R 309.28 96 0.08 9081.4 102 0.76 1.1 104 0.14 29.95 108 0.08Holly Hybrid 00HX027 308.96 95 0.08 8152.7 91 0.09 1.12 105 0.06 26.45 96 0.32Holly Hybrid 00HX026 347.3 107 0.01 8442.8 94 0.29 1.02 96 0.14 24.29 88 0.01Hilleshog 7121 315.92 98 0.34 9732.5 109 0.09 1.09 102 0.36 31.5 114 0Beta 6904 339.26 105 0.06 8711.7 97 0.62 1.01 95 0.05 25.81 93 0.13Hilleshog 7120 318.12 98 0.5 9271.6 104 0.48 1.08 102 0.45 28.79 104 0.39Hilleshog 7118 321.82 99 0.82 7456.3 83 0 1.07 101 0.73 23.56 85 0Vanderhave H68211 321.78 99 0.81 9559.4 107 0.19 1.06 100 0.86 29.55 107 0.14Hilleshog 7114 332.5 103 0.29 9390.5 105 0.34 1.01 95 0.05 28.89 104 0.35Hilleshog 7108 309.11 95 0.08 9545.7 107 0.2 1.09 103 0.25 30.55 110 0.03Vanderhave H68108 316.74 98 0.4 9751.1 109 0.09 1.09 102 0.43 31.2 113 0.01Vanderhave H46109 314.98 97 0.29 8193.5 92 0.11 1.09 102 0.39 25.77 93 0.13Beta BM0901 320.57 99 0.7 10205 114 0.01 1.07 101 0.7 32.45 117 0Hilleshog 1643 320.17 99 0.67 8464 95 0.31 1.07 101 0.74 26.63 96 0.4Hilleshog 7111 337.67 104 0.09 10361 116 0 1.04 97 0.28 30.4 110 0.03Hilleshog 7089 313.73 97 0.23 8870.5 99 0.88 1.1 103 0.25 27.84 101 0.91Crystal R932 321.44 99 0.78 9059.8 101 0.8 1.06 100 0.86 28.54 103 0.5Crystal 956 327.24 101 0.67 9548.5 107 0.2 1.05 99 0.64 29.8 108 0.1Hilleshog 7101 328.49 101 0.56 8367.1 94 0.22 1.05 98 0.49 25.28 91 0.06Crystal 921 322.05 99 0.84 8280.6 93 0.16 1.08 102 0.47 25.84 93 0.14Check Mean 323.72 8940.8 1.06 27.7Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.84 10.42 5.05 8.57F Value 1.96* 2.22** 1.34ns 3.44**Mean LSD (0.05) 23.43 7 1332.8 15 0.08 7 3.59 13Mean LSD (0.01) 31.07 10 1766.2 20 0.1 9 4.76 17

36

5614 Montevideo/Payne (Continued)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Non-Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta M815 17.11 99 0.72 32.96 99 0.94 52.73 74 0 1.68 75 0.27Hilleshog 7097 17.25 100 0.99 28.33 85 0.33 75.65 106 0.32 1.67 74 0.25Beta M813 17.47 101 0.57 43.96 132 0.04 65.74 92 0.16 1.16 52 0.04Holly Hybrid 00HX019 18.44 107 0 31.07 93 0.66 77.6 108 0.14 3.56 158 0.01Seedex SX1019 17.07 99 0.65 20.51 61 0.01 53.53 75 0 1.9 85 0.5Seedex SX1017 17.71 103 0.24 41.27 124 0.13 85.92 120 0 1.46 65 0.12Beta M932 18 104 0.06 29.32 88 0.43 57.92 81 0 2.35 104 0.84Beta BM0902 17.84 103 0.13 38.63 116 0.31 62.89 88 0.04 1.92 85 0.52Crystal RZT010 16.34 95 0.02 20.6 62 0.02 59.47 83 0 2.31 103 0.91Crystal R828 16.56 96 0.08 40.2 120 0.19 87.44 122 0 3.25 145 0.05Beta 4811R 16.57 96 0.08 25.97 78 0.15 70.03 98 0.72 2.21 98 0.94Holly Hybrid 00HX027 16.56 96 0.08 21.42 64 0.02 57.48 80 0 1.93 86 0.53Holly Hybrid 00HX026 18.39 107 0 36.27 109 0.57 72.61 102 0.79 6.39 284 0Hilleshog 7121 16.89 98 0.35 21.39 64 0.02 67.31 94 0.31 2.09 93 0.75Beta 6904 17.97 104 0.06 29.66 89 0.47 75.87 106 0.29 2.11 94 0.79Hilleshog 7120 16.99 98 0.5 22.35 67 0.04 75.67 106 0.32 1.72 76 0.3Hilleshog 7118 17.17 100 0.83 32.42 97 0.85 78.44 110 0.1 1.67 74 0.26Vanderhave H68211 17.15 99 0.8 41.67 125 0.11 76.66 107 0.21 1.95 87 0.56Hilleshog 7114 17.64 102 0.31 34.89 105 0.77 77.4 108 0.16 1.79 80 0.37Hilleshog 7108 16.55 96 0.07 53.3 160 0 77.81 109 0.13 1.94 86 0.54Vanderhave H68108 16.92 98 0.4 26.52 79 0.19 67 94 0.27 1.89 84 0.48Vanderhave H46109 16.83 98 0.28 31.79 95 0.76 82.99 116 0.01 2.52 112 0.59Beta BM0901 17.1 99 0.7 43.32 130 0.06 83.7 117 0 2.73 121 0.35Hilleshog 1643 17.08 99 0.66 35.92 108 0.62 66.46 93 0.22 3 133 0.15Hilleshog 7111 17.91 104 0.09 38.64 116 0.31 74.4 104 0.49 0.98 44 0.01Hilleshog 7089 16.78 97 0.23 43.56 131 0.05 75.01 105 0.4 4.39 195 0Crystal R932 17.14 99 0.77 35.6 107 0.67 68.77 96 0.5 1.99 89 0.62Crystal 956 17.42 101 0.67 29.82 89 0.49 72.8 102 0.76 1.5 67 0.14Hilleshog 7101 17.47 101 0.57 31.31 94 0.69 76.02 106 0.28 0.84 38 0.01Crystal 921 17.18 100 0.86 38.46 115 0.33 70.45 98 0.79 2.58 115 0.52Check Mean 17.25 33.37 71.52 2.25Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.26 29.2 11.37 45.16F Value 1.99** 2.53** 4.77** 4.34**Mean LSD (0.05) 1.1 6 14.75 44 11.74 16 1.45 65Mean LSD (0.01) 1.46 8 19.55 59 15.56 22 1.93 86


5615 DeGraff/BoschAMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH. SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice

Rec/T (lbs) Rec/A (lbs) Loss to Mol. YieldEntry Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %T

Mean Mean Mean MeBeta 4811R 301.81 96 0.13 8792.7 141 0 1.14 103 0.15 28.96Beta 6904 299.05 96 0.06 4681.4 75 0 1.15 105 0.05 15.76Beta BM0901 324.73 104 0.12 9063.6 146 0 1.05 96 0.1 27.64Beta BM0902 309.95 99 0.67 6915.5 111 0.13 1.11 101 0.67 22.68Beta M813 322.36 103 0.21 7958.2 128 0 1.07 97 0.27 24.72Beta M815 305.15 97 0.29 5130.2 83 0.02 1.12 102 0.34 16.76Beta M932 323.29 103 0.17 5933.3 95 0.54 1.06 97 0.15 18.31Crystal 921 312.26 100 0.91 5265 85 0.04 1.1 100 0.95 16.73Crystal 956 306.22 98 0.36 5758.7 93 0.32 1.12 102 0.38 18.63Crystal R828 332.19 106 0.01 9152.1 147 0 1.04 94 0.02 27.7Crystal R932 324.83 104 0.12 8436.8 136 0 1.06 97 0.21 26.77Crystal RZT010 314.29 100 0.87 7374.7 119 0.01 1.09 99 0.7 23.19Hilleshog 1643 288.51 92 0 2852.3 46 0 1.19 108 0 9.95Hilleshog 7089 309.16 99 0.6 5471.3 88 0.11 1.11 101 0.7 17.6Hilleshog 7097 318.55 102 0.46 4807.6 77 0 1.08 98 0.41 15.09Hilleshog 7101 306.48 98 0.37 4555.5 73 0 1.12 102 0.4 14.76Hilleshog 7108 324.86 104 0.12 9291.8 150 0 1.05 96 0.08 28.55Hilleshog 7111 339.13 108 0 7587.6 122 0 1.02 93 0 22.06Hilleshog 7114 295.63 94 0.02 4767.1 77 0 1.16 106 0.01 16.28Hilleshog 7118 317.43 101 0.56 3812.4 61 0 1.08 98 0.46 11.99Hilleshog 7120 304.87 97 0.27 3985.5 64 0 1.13 103 0.3 13.17Hilleshog 7121 303.56 97 0.2 7580.7 122 0 1.13 103 0.2 24.92Holly Hybrid 00HX019 329.84 105 0.03 6939.6 112 0.12 1.03 94 0.02 21.05Holly Hybrid 00HX026 322.61 103 0.2 5352.7 86 0.06 1.06 97 0.17 16.42Holly Hybrid 00HX027 335.07 107 0 7654.3 123 0 1.03 93 0.01 22.69Seedex SX1017 307.82 98 0.48 5157.8 83 0.02 1.12 102 0.48 16.77Seedex SX1019 317.42 101 0.56 5381.1 87 0.07 1.08 98 0.43 17.03Vanderhave H46109 308.87 99 0.57 5936.3 96 0.55 1.11 101 0.66 19.21Vanderhave H68108 291.85 93 0.01 5908 95 0.51 1.18 107 0 20.51Vanderhave H68211 295.14 94 0.02 4938.3 79 0.01 1.16 106 0.02 16.74Check Mean 313.1 6214.7 1.1 19.76Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.52 14.93 4.63 14.84F Value 2.90** 13.79** 2.81** 12.22**Mean LSD (0.05) 21.21 7 1314.4 21 0.08 7 4.12Mean LSD (0.01) 28.11 9 1741.6 28 0.1 9 5.46

Click forMain Menu

37

(T/A)est P-Valan147 080 0.01

140 0115 0.05125 085 0.0493 0.3285 0.0494 0.44

140 0135 0117 0.02

50 089 0.1476 075 0

145 0112 0.1182 0.0261 067 0

126 0107 0.37

83 0.02115 0.04

85 0.0486 0.0697 0.71

104 0.685 0.04

2128

38

5615 DeGraff/Bosch (Continued)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH. SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice

Sugar % Emergence 1 Emergence 2 (%) Tare %Entry Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val Mean %Test P-Val

Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 4811R 16.23 97 0.13 29.15 86 0.4 56.62 78 0 1.34 78 0.42Beta 6904 16.1 96 0.06 22.92 68 0.05 52.45 72 0 1.42 83 0.53Beta BM0901 17.29 103 0.12 48.97 145 0.01 73.17 100 0.94 1.11 65 0.21Beta BM0902 16.61 99 0.67 36.1 107 0.69 65.62 90 0.11 1.68 98 0.93Beta M813 17.19 103 0.21 36.47 108 0.64 75.7 104 0.52 1.59 93 0.79Beta M815 16.38 98 0.28 39.92 118 0.28 71.17 98 0.72 1.13 66 0.21Beta M932 17.22 103 0.17 28.12 83 0.31 78.12 107 0.24 2.18 127 0.33Crystal 921 16.71 100 0.91 25.35 75 0.13 75 103 0.63 2.56 149 0.08Crystal 956 16.43 98 0.36 45.5 134 0.04 91.67 126 0 1.53 89 0.69Crystal R828 17.65 105 0.01 45.85 135 0.03 83.32 114 0.02 2.39 139 0.16Crystal R932 17.31 103 0.11 36.45 108 0.64 75.7 104 0.52 1.45 84 0.57Crystal RZT010 16.8 100 0.89 30.2 89 0.51 73.6 101 0.86 1.41 82 0.52Hilleshog 1643 15.62 93 0 38.2 113 0.44 77.45 106 0.31 1.73 100 0.99Hilleshog 7089 16.57 99 0.59 26.4 78 0.18 74.32 102 0.74 2.03 118 0.51Hilleshog 7097 17 101 0.47 27.07 80 0.23 78.1 107 0.24 1.69 98 0.95Hilleshog 7101 16.44 98 0.37 35.45 105 0.78 81.57 112 0.06 0.98 57 0.12Hilleshog 7108 17.3 103 0.12 41.7 123 0.16 79.5 109 0.14 1.39 81 0.49Hilleshog 7111 17.98 107 0 41.32 122 0.18 73.97 102 0.8 1.27 74 0.35Hilleshog 7114 15.95 95 0.02 42.7 126 0.12 79.87 110 0.12 2.34 136 0.19Hilleshog 7118 16.95 101 0.57 43.07 127 0.1 84 115 0.01 1.42 83 0.54Hilleshog 7120 16.37 98 0.27 20.15 60 0.02 77.07 106 0.35 1.7 99 0.98Hilleshog 7121 16.31 97 0.2 23.65 70 0.07 64.57 89 0.07 1.85 108 0.77Holly Hybrid 00HX019 17.53 105 0.03 34 100 0.98 65.97 91 0.13 1.86 108 0.77Holly Hybrid 00HX026 17.19 103 0.21 33.35 98 0.93 79.17 109 0.16 2.96 173 0.01Holly Hybrid 00HX027 17.78 106 0 16.67 49 0 48.92 67 0 1.01 59 0.14Seedex SX1017 16.51 99 0.48 53.47 158 0 81.27 112 0.06 3.37 196 0Seedex SX1019 16.95 101 0.57 16.65 49 0 58.65 81 0 1.45 84 0.57Vanderhave H46109 16.55 99 0.56 31.95 94 0.73 68.42 94 0.33 1.68 98 0.94Vanderhave H68108 15.77 94 0.01 29.87 88 0.48 63.17 87 0.03 1.64 96 0.87Vanderhave H68211 15.92 95 0.02 35.1 104 0.82 76.37 105 0.43 1.34 78 0.43Check Mean 16.75 33.86 72.82 1.72Coeff. of Var. (%) 3.92 33.5 12.58 55.18F Value 2.91** 2.70** 4.50** 1.36nsMean LSD (0.05) 0.99 6 15.94 47 12.87 18 1.35 79Mean LSD (0.01) 1.31 8 21.13 62 17.05 23 1.79 105


39

5616 Lueschen & NobleAMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 4811R 289.95 104 0.22 9030.3 110 0.12 1.19 97 0.26 30.8 105 0.37Beta 6904 281.53 101 0.79 6514.5 79 0 1.22 100 0.85 23.36 80 0Beta BM0901 270.9 97 0.34 9324.1 114 0.04 1.26 103 0.19 34.45 117 0Beta BM0902 290.8 104 0.18 9165.2 112 0.07 1.18 96 0.15 31.79 108 0.13Beta M813 300.3 108 0.02 9345.3 114 0.03 1.15 94 0.01 31.07 106 0.28Beta M815 255.77 92 0.01 7641.9 93 0.3 1.31 107 0.01 29.48 100 0.93Beta M932 278.74 100 0.96 8201.9 100 0.99 1.22 100 0.97 29.37 100 0.98Crystal 921 289.97 104 0.22 7520.9 92 0.21 1.18 97 0.22 26.04 89 0.04Crystal 956 278.47 100 0.93 8827.7 108 0.24 1.22 100 0.99 31.46 107 0.19Crystal R828 288.7 103 0.28 8807.6 107 0.25 1.19 97 0.29 30.28 103 0.56Crystal R932 277.88 100 0.88 8115.6 99 0.88 1.23 101 0.79 29.04 99 0.85Crystal RZT010 272.9 98 0.47 9343.4 114 0.03 1.25 102 0.43 34.3 117 0Hilleshog 1643 269.39 96 0.26 6103.9 74 0 1.27 104 0.13 22.68 77 0Hilleshog 7089 277.66 99 0.86 8757.2 107 0.29 1.23 101 0.78 31.51 107 0.18Hilleshog 7097 286.63 103 0.39 9506 116 0.02 1.2 98 0.39 33.05 113 0.02Hilleshog 7101 276.73 99 0.78 8493.7 104 0.58 1.23 101 0.79 30.68 105 0.41Hilleshog 7108 289.73 104 0.23 8999.7 110 0.13 1.18 97 0.2 31.29 107 0.23Hilleshog 7111 302.33 108 0.01 9346.5 114 0.03 1.14 93 0.01 30.99 106 0.31Hilleshog 7114 268.08 96 0.2 7241.4 88 0.08 1.27 104 0.1 26.95 92 0.14Hilleshog 7118 263.31 94 0.07 6588.4 80 0 1.27 104 0.14 25.15 86 0.01Hilleshog 7120 288.46 103 0.29 8728.7 106 0.32 1.19 97 0.28 30.21 103 0.59Hilleshog 7121 275.91 99 0.7 7742.6 94 0.39 1.24 101 0.58 28.17 96 0.47Holly Hybrid 00HX019 279.55 100 0.97 6888.4 84 0.02 1.22 100 0.94 24.68 84 0Holly Hybrid 00HX026 305.32 109 0 8032.3 98 0.76 1.12 92 0 26.23 89 0.06Holly Hybrid 00HX027 292.74 105 0.12 8733 107 0.31 1.17 96 0.09 29.88 102 0.74Seedex SX1017 262.68 94 0.06 5955.5 73 0 1.28 105 0.06 22.76 78 0Seedex SX1019 285.66 102 0.46 9913.8 121 0 1.2 98 0.46 34.94 119 0Vanderhave H46109 276.77 99 0.78 7618.4 93 0.28 1.24 101 0.64 27.57 94 0.28Vanderhave H68108 236.15 85 0 6637.1 81 0 1.34 110 0 28.48 97 0.6Vanderhave H68211 262.88 94 0.06 8768.1 107 0.28 1.29 105 0.04 33.42 114 0.01Check Mean 279.2 8196.4 1.22 29.34Coeff. of Var. (%) 5.93 12.58 4.71 10.79F Value 2.63** 4.05** 2.51** 4.25**Mean LSD (0.05) 24.74 9 1517.5 19 0.09 7 4.62 16Mean LSD (0.01) 32.8 12 2011.1 25 0.11 9 6.12 21

40

5616 Lueschen & Noble (Continued)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 4811R 15.69 103 0.21 37.6 84 0.05 57.57 107 0.38 2.12 79 0.4Beta 6904 15.29 101 0.78 32.75 73 0 52.7 98 0.76 2.34 88 0.61Beta BM0901 14.81 98 0.35 41.07 91 0.29 59.27 110 0.19 1.32 49 0.04Beta BM0902 15.72 104 0.19 59.12 132 0 48.55 90 0.19 2.07 78 0.36Beta M813 16.16 106 0.02 33.42 74 0 55.5 103 0.7 1.92 72 0.25Beta M815 14.1 93 0.01 47.32 105 0.52 55.45 103 0.71 2.28 85 0.55Beta M932 15.16 100 0.96 40.75 91 0.25 54.47 101 0.9 2.37 89 0.65Crystal 921 15.68 103 0.22 54.62 122 0.01 65.2 121 0.01 3.27 123 0.35Crystal 956 15.15 100 0.93 36.22 81 0.02 36.7 68 0 1.94 73 0.26Crystal R828 15.63 103 0.27 51.15 114 0.09 41.97 78 0 2.96 111 0.65Crystal R932 15.12 100 0.89 34.82 77 0.01 51.65 96 0.57 3.18 119 0.43Crystal RZT010 14.89 98 0.47 37.6 84 0.05 57.57 107 0.38 2.33 87 0.6Hilleshog 1643 14.74 97 0.27 45.22 101 0.94 60.35 112 0.12 4.24 159 0.02Hilleshog 7089 15.11 100 0.87 39.02 87 0.11 37.4 69 0 2.65 99 0.98Hilleshog 7097 15.53 102 0.39 52.85 118 0.03 41.6 77 0 1.85 69 0.21Hilleshog 7101 15.07 99 0.78 48.35 108 0.35 67.6 125 0 2.31 87 0.58Hilleshog 7108 15.67 103 0.23 51.82 115 0.06 69.7 129 0 2.61 98 0.93Hilleshog 7111 16.26 107 0.01 46.62 104 0.65 35 65 0 1.81 68 0.19Hilleshog 7114 14.68 97 0.21 53.25 118 0.03 67.97 126 0 2.55 96 0.86Hilleshog 7118 14.43 95 0.07 40.37 90 0.21 52.37 97 0.7 4.04 151 0.04Hilleshog 7120 15.61 103 0.29 47.67 106 0.46 18.7 35 0 1.41 53 0.05Hilleshog 7121 15.03 99 0.71 41.77 93 0.38 56.9 105 0.47 4.04 151 0.04Holly Hybrid 00HX019 15.2 100 0.96 40.05 89 0.18 60.35 112 0.12 3.28 123 0.34Holly Hybrid 00HX026 16.39 108 0 48.37 108 0.35 66.6 123 0 4.63 174 0Holly Hybrid 00HX027 15.81 104 0.12 54.6 121 0.01 66.6 123 0 1.83 69 0.2Seedex SX1017 14.41 95 0.06 52.52 117 0.04 60 111 0.14 4.01 150 0.04Seedex SX1019 15.48 102 0.46 63.32 141 0 78.72 146 0 1.96 74 0.28Vanderhave H46109 15.07 99 0.79 50.45 112 0.13 53.77 100 0.97 4.33 162 0.01Vanderhave H68108 13.15 87 0 41.77 93 0.38 39.52 73 0 2.26 85 0.53Vanderhave H68211 14.43 95 0.07 24.07 54 0 48.55 90 0.19 2.11 79 0.39Check Mean 15.18 44.95 53.94 2.67Coeff. of Var. (%) 5.08 16.47 15.36 49.46F Value 2.64** 5.55** 9.29** 1.95**Mean LSD (0.05) 1.15 8 10.4 23 11.65 22 1.85 69Mean LSD (0.01) 1.53 10 13.78 31 15.43 29 2.45 92


41

5617 Rudeen/Bird IslandAMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 4811R 281.63 98 0.51 5763.6 142 0 1.22 101 0.6 20.41 144 0Beta 6904 287.63 100 0.84 3175.3 78 0 1.19 99 0.81 10.93 77 0Beta BM0901 291.97 102 0.41 5866.8 145 0 1.18 98 0.41 20.1 142 0Beta BM0902 290.02 101 0.59 4551.5 112 0.1 1.18 98 0.51 15.69 111 0.1Beta M813 299.01 104 0.07 5226.2 129 0 1.15 96 0.09 17.5 124 0Beta M815 285.55 100 0.92 3829 94 0.45 1.2 100 0.99 13.32 94 0.38Beta M932 291.99 102 0.41 3644 90 0.17 1.18 98 0.45 12.55 89 0.09Crystal 921 296.52 104 0.14 3865.3 95 0.53 1.15 96 0.12 13.1 93 0.27Crystal 956 292.43 102 0.38 3761.5 93 0.33 1.18 98 0.4 12.71 90 0.13Crystal R828 273.73 96 0.07 5243.1 129 0 1.25 104 0.14 19.24 136 0Crystal R932 299.46 105 0.06 5439.6 134 0 1.14 95 0.06 18.14 128 0Crystal RZT010 277.22 97 0.2 4905 121 0.01 1.24 103 0.24 17.65 125 0Hilleshog 1643 268.38 94 0.01 2303.2 57 0 1.27 106 0.03 8.55 60 0Hilleshog 7089 281.32 98 0.48 3467.6 86 0.05 1.22 101 0.59 12.3 87 0.05Hilleshog 7097 296.49 104 0.14 3248.6 80 0.01 1.21 101 0.81 11 78 0Hilleshog 7101 294.29 103 0.25 3462.7 85 0.05 1.17 97 0.25 11.75 83 0.01Hilleshog 7108 276.04 96 0.14 5041.9 124 0 1.24 103 0.2 18.22 129 0Hilleshog 7111 296.65 104 0.14 5348.4 132 0 1.16 96 0.15 18.09 128 0Hilleshog 7114 279.63 98 0.34 3252.2 80 0.01 1.22 102 0.49 11.56 82 0.01Hilleshog 7118 306.96 107 0 2651.8 65 0 1.17 97 0.28 8.62 61 0Hilleshog 7120 281.75 98 0.52 2896.2 71 0 1.22 101 0.65 10.21 72 0Hilleshog 7121 277.11 97 0.19 3568.3 88 0.11 1.23 103 0.3 12.86 91 0.17Holly Hybrid 00HX019 292.78 102 0.35 4691.2 116 0.04 1.17 98 0.35 16.01 113 0.05Holly Hybrid 00HX026 274.35 96 0.09 3377.2 83 0.03 1.24 103 0.17 12.24 86 0.05Holly Hybrid 00HX027 285.91 100 0.96 4103.5 101 0.87 1.19 99 0.81 14.46 102 0.74Seedex SX1017 289.47 101 0.64 3206.6 79 0.01 1.19 99 0.62 11.1 78 0Seedex SX1019 289.99 101 0.59 3934.7 97 0.69 1.19 99 0.65 13.53 96 0.51Vanderhave H46109 279.38 98 0.33 3878.8 96 0.56 1.22 102 0.45 13.89 98 0.78Vanderhave H68108 269.8 94 0.02 4450.1 110 0.19 1.26 104 0.08 16.44 116 0.02Vanderhave H68211 280.23 98 0.39 3468.5 86 0.05 1.22 102 0.49 12.37 87 0.06Check Mean 286.26 4054.1 1.2 14.15Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.83 14.76 4.97 13.14F Value 1.85* 9.92** 1.21ns 12.23**Mean LSD (0.05) 19.86 7 853.75 21 0.09 7 2.69 19Mean LSD (0.01) 26.32 9 1131.3 28 0.11 9 3.57 25

42

5617 Rudeen/Bird Island (Continued)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 4811R 15.3 99 0.5 47.74 86 0.12 52.92 90 0.29 2.09 59 0.05Beta 6904 15.58 100 0.85 38.99 70 0 37.51 64 0 3.8 108 0.72Beta BM0901 15.78 102 0.42 75.16 135 0 70.85 120 0.04 3.34 94 0.79Beta BM0902 15.68 101 0.6 53.43 96 0.68 50.75 86 0.15 3.78 107 0.74Beta M813 16.1 104 0.07 52.37 94 0.53 58.17 99 0.89 2.97 84 0.45Beta M815 15.48 100 0.91 60.98 110 0.28 64.11 109 0.36 2.06 58 0.05Beta M932 15.78 102 0.41 52.39 94 0.53 57.15 97 0.75 3.95 112 0.58Crystal 921 15.98 103 0.15 58.52 105 0.55 61.9 105 0.6 3.03 86 0.5Crystal 956 15.8 102 0.38 66.51 120 0.03 68.2 116 0.1 2 57 0.04Crystal R828 14.93 96 0.07 68.45 123 0.01 74.9 127 0.01 3.5 99 0.96Crystal R932 16.12 104 0.06 53.39 96 0.67 60.83 103 0.74 3.01 85 0.48Crystal RZT010 15.1 97 0.2 52.19 94 0.51 59.94 102 0.86 3.62 102 0.91Hilleshog 1643 14.69 95 0.01 52.13 94 0.5 52.36 89 0.25 5.5 155 0.01Hilleshog 7089 15.28 99 0.47 60.91 110 0.28 65.83 112 0.23 5.38 152 0.02Hilleshog 7097 16.03 103 0.11 59.48 107 0.43 63.97 109 0.38 2.28 64 0.09Hilleshog 7101 15.88 102 0.25 58.94 106 0.5 62.06 105 0.58 4.03 114 0.51Hilleshog 7108 15.04 97 0.14 55.23 99 0.95 58.81 100 0.98 2.26 64 0.09Hilleshog 7111 15.99 103 0.14 58.22 105 0.59 57.97 98 0.86 1.68 47 0.01Hilleshog 7114 15.2 98 0.34 64.04 115 0.09 75.92 129 0 4.89 138 0.07Hilleshog 7118 16.52 106 0 67.26 121 0.02 73.1 124 0.01 4.57 129 0.17Hilleshog 7120 15.3 99 0.51 50.75 91 0.34 56.81 96 0.71 1.97 56 0.04Hilleshog 7121 15.09 97 0.19 35.63 64 0 41.51 70 0 3.32 94 0.77Holly Hybrid 00HX019 15.81 102 0.36 45.71 82 0.05 47.28 80 0.04 5.14 145 0.03Holly Hybrid 00HX026 14.96 96 0.09 57.41 103 0.71 59.74 101 0.89 4.01 113 0.53Holly Hybrid 00HX027 15.49 100 0.94 49.93 90 0.27 55.16 94 0.5 3.19 90 0.64Seedex SX1017 15.66 101 0.65 67.2 121 0.02 72.44 123 0.02 4.94 140 0.06Seedex SX1019 15.69 101 0.59 36.44 66 0 34.99 59 0 3.29 93 0.74Vanderhave H46109 15.19 98 0.32 66.5 120 0.03 69.97 119 0.05 3.68 104 0.85Vanderhave H68108 14.75 95 0.02 48.8 88 0.18 53.02 90 0.3 4.17 118 0.4Vanderhave H68211 15.23 98 0.38 51.01 92 0.37 50.08 85 0.12 4.67 132 0.13Check Mean 15.51 55.52 58.94 3.54Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.12 17.97 18.79 40.72F Value 1.90* 3.49** 3.28** 2.03**Mean LSD (0.05) 0.92 6 14.27 26 16.17 27 2.13 60Mean LSD (0.01) 1.21 8 18.91 34 21.42 36 2.82 80


43

5618 Fischer/Buffalo LakeAMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 4811R 319.51 101 0.65 10187 155 0 1.07 98 0.5 31.61 153 0Beta 6904 322.64 102 0.4 4743.1 72 0 1.06 97 0.34 14.86 72 0Beta BM0901 333.08 105 0.03 9275.1 141 0 1.03 94 0.04 27.77 134 0Beta BM0902 309.82 98 0.45 7640.2 116 0.02 1.1 101 0.66 24.85 120 0Beta M813 334.31 106 0.02 9183.9 140 0 1.03 94 0.04 27.23 131 0Beta M815 304.22 96 0.15 5897.5 90 0.13 1.13 104 0.17 19.39 94 0.32Beta M932 320.24 101 0.59 6102.4 93 0.29 1.07 99 0.57 18.68 90 0.13Crystal 921 319.48 101 0.65 5973.5 91 0.18 1.08 99 0.7 18.44 89 0.09Crystal 956 314.58 100 0.87 5060.3 77 0 1.09 100 0.93 16.36 79 0Crystal R828 321.37 102 0.49 9403.8 143 0 1.07 98 0.4 29.52 142 0Crystal R932 327.25 104 0.16 10087 153 0 1.05 96 0.16 30.76 148 0Crystal RZT010 315.64 100 0.98 8056.6 122 0 1.09 100 0.94 25.85 125 0Hilleshog 1643 284.55 90 0 3822.3 58 0 1.21 111 0 13.31 64 0Hilleshog 7089 320.37 101 0.57 6316.8 96 0.56 1.07 98 0.44 19.3 93 0.28Hilleshog 7097 312.79 99 0.7 5585.4 85 0.03 1.1 101 0.76 17.48 84 0.02Hilleshog 7101 308.52 98 0.36 5034.2 77 0 1.11 102 0.47 16.25 78 0Hilleshog 7108 339.9 108 0 9978.5 152 0 1.01 93 0.01 28.98 140 0Hilleshog 7111 332.48 105 0.04 9460 144 0 1.03 94 0.04 28.67 138 0Hilleshog 7114 297.66 94 0.03 4364 66 0 1.16 106 0.03 14.94 72 0Hilleshog 7118 312.53 99 0.68 3940.5 60 0 1.1 101 0.72 12.75 61 0Hilleshog 7120 292.35 93 0 3244.1 49 0 1.17 108 0 11.48 55 0Hilleshog 7121 293.16 93 0.01 6562.8 100 0.97 1.17 108 0 22.59 109 0.16Holly Hybrid 00HX019 345.89 110 0 7767.7 118 0.01 1.01 92 0 23.01 111 0.09Holly Hybrid 00HX026 342.87 109 0 4816.7 73 0 1.01 92 0 14.73 71 0Holly Hybrid 00HX027 314.11 99 0.83 8284 126 0 1.1 101 0.78 26.45 128 0Seedex SX1017 316.58 100 0.93 4312.4 66 0 1.08 99 0.78 13.33 64 0Seedex SX1019 315.46 100 0.96 6024.9 92 0.22 1.09 100 0.99 19.13 92 0.23Vanderhave H46109 302.25 96 0.09 5113.7 78 0 1.14 104 0.12 17.08 82 0.01Vanderhave H68108 301.7 96 0.08 5867 89 0.12 1.14 104 0.09 19.61 95 0.4Vanderhave H68211 300.17 95 0.05 5289.4 80 0.01 1.14 105 0.06 17.4 84 0.01Check Mean 315.85 6579.8 1.09 20.73Coeff. of Var. (%) 5.06 12.87 5.29 11.83F Value 3.43** 21.64** 3.07** 20.60**Mean LSD (0.05) 22.94 7 1282.7 19 0.08 8 3.79 18Mean LSD (0.01) 30.4 10 1700.7 26 0.11 10 5.03 24

44

5618 Fischer/Buffalo Lake (Continued)AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. - TECH SERV. CENTER SMBSC Semi Commercial (Disease)30 Entries 4 Reps X Loc 2 Rows/Plot 1 Samples/Plot Coded Trial - Lattice


Mean Mean Mean MeanBeta 4811R 17.05 101 0.66 23.29 99 0.96 55.2 88 0.18 2.57 64 0.07Beta 6904 17.19 102 0.4 22.81 97 0.89 49.3 78 0.02 4.68 117 0.39Beta BM0901 17.68 105 0.03 38.67 164 0 68.08 108 0.39 2.94 73 0.17Beta BM0902 16.59 98 0.44 29.39 125 0.25 52.1 83 0.06 2.97 74 0.19Beta M813 17.74 105 0.02 30.69 130 0.16 67.35 107 0.46 3.63 91 0.63Beta M815 16.34 97 0.15 24.61 105 0.83 59.73 95 0.57 3.56 89 0.57Beta M932 17.09 101 0.59 25.36 108 0.72 58.68 93 0.45 4.54 113 0.49Crystal 921 17.05 101 0.65 23.52 100 1 64.58 102 0.79 3.8 95 0.79Crystal 956 16.82 100 0.86 25.54 109 0.69 54.5 86 0.14 2.4 60 0.04Crystal R828 17.13 101 0.5 35.34 150 0.02 77.43 123 0.01 3.54 88 0.55Crystal R932 17.41 103 0.16 19.55 83 0.44 52.1 83 0.06 2.58 64 0.07Crystal RZT010 16.87 100 0.97 26.34 112 0.58 54.5 86 0.14 3.32 83 0.38Hilleshog 1643 15.43 91 0 26.24 112 0.6 65.3 104 0.7 8.84 221 0Hilleshog 7089 17.09 101 0.59 27.07 115 0.49 77.45 123 0.01 3.15 79 0.28Hilleshog 7097 16.74 99 0.7 23.6 100 0.99 72.93 116 0.09 3.73 93 0.72Hilleshog 7101 16.54 98 0.36 18.83 80 0.36 64.6 102 0.79 3.12 78 0.26Hilleshog 7108 18.01 107 0 32.02 136 0.1 77.1 122 0.02 2.96 74 0.18Hilleshog 7111 17.65 105 0.04 30.8 131 0.16 69.1 110 0.3 1.59 40 0Hilleshog 7114 16.04 95 0.03 27.71 118 0.41 67.35 107 0.46 3.41 85 0.45Hilleshog 7118 16.73 99 0.68 25.59 109 0.69 79.18 126 0.01 4.99 125 0.21Hilleshog 7120 15.79 94 0 17.61 75 0.25 66.68 106 0.53 4.86 121 0.27Hilleshog 7121 15.83 94 0.01 11.85 50 0.02 62.15 99 0.88 6.01 150 0.01Holly Hybrid 00HX019 18.3 108 0 16.25 69 0.16 51.03 81 0.04 3.58 89 0.58Holly Hybrid 00HX026 18.15 108 0 14.72 63 0.09 63.88 101 0.89 8.28 207 0Holly Hybrid 00HX027 16.8 100 0.83 7.95 34 0 44.45 71 0 1.7 43 0Seedex SX1017 16.91 100 0.94 39.48 168 0 75.7 120 0.03 5.89 147 0.02Seedex SX1019 16.86 100 0.96 8.19 35 0 44.1 70 0 3.17 79 0.29Vanderhave H46109 16.25 96 0.09 17.06 73 0.21 73.28 116 0.08 6.12 153 0.01Vanderhave H68108 16.22 96 0.08 14.5 62 0.08 62.85 100 0.97 3.62 90 0.62Vanderhave H68211 16.15 96 0.05 21.39 91 0.67 60.75 96 0.69 4.63 116 0.43Check Mean 16.88 23.53 63.05 4.01Coeff. of Var. (%) 4.4 42.62 18.62 38.77F Value 3.45** 2.34** 2.88** 4.47**Mean LSD (0.05) 1.07 6 14.53 62 16.49 26 2.23 56Mean LSD (0.01) 1.41 8 19.26 82 21.84 35 2.95 74


ADDITIONS, VARIATIONS, AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE MICRO-RATE EXPERIMENT

OBJECTIVE:

Evaluate and compare the influence of variable rates of Betamix and application timing on the Micro-rate in additeffect of using preplant incorporated and lay-by products with the Micro-rate to the performance of the standard Micro-rate

EXPERIMENT PROCEDURE:

The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replicates. Efficacy data was collected fromthree locations planted in 2000 while yield data was collected only at the Gluek and Buffalo Lake locations. The variety atharvested locations was Beta 5014. Applications were made to the center four rows of six row by 30 ft experimental units bicycle wheel-type sprayer delivering 8.5 gpa at 40 p.s.i. through 8001 flat fan nozzles. Treatments included the Micro-raapplication timings and intervals with and without Dual PPI and Dual or Frontier applied as lay-by with the first Micro-rateapplication. A list of treatment dates, evaluation dates, and harvest dates for each location can be found in table 1. A sepacontrol application of Select herbicide at 6 oz./A was made to each plot on June 23. Weed control, sugar beet injury, and yfor each site can be found in tables two through six.

Table 1. Specifications for the Additions, Variations, and Modifications to theMicro-rate experiment.

P P I H a n dE x p . D u a l P l a n t H a r v

# L o c a t io n T r t s D a t e 1 2 3 4 E v a l 1 E v a l 2 D a t e

0 0 2 1 G lu e k 4 / 2 5 4 / 2 5 5 / 2 3 5 / 3 0 6 / 6 6 / 1 3 6 / 2 0 7 / 7 9 / 1 30 0 2 2 R e n v i l l e 4 / 2 4 4 / 2 5 5 / 2 3 5 / 3 0 6 / 6 6 / 1 3 6 / 3 0 7 / 1 3 9 / 1 40 0 2 3 B u f f L a k e 4 / 2 5 5 / 1 5 / 2 9 6 / 5 6 / 1 3 6 / 2 0 6 / 2 2 7 / 7 9 / 1 8

P O S T M ic r o - r a t eB a s e d T r e a t m e n t s

E v a lu a t io nD a t e s

SUMMARY:

! Initiating the Micro-rate program at cotyledon weed stage and applying four times at a 7-day interval maximized efficrecoverable sugar per acre from beets treated with the Micro-rate program.

! Incremental increases of Betamix in the Micro-rate in each of three applications may provide equal weed control with to the standard Micro-rate program applied four times.

! Dual II Magnum used pre-plant incorporated followed by three postemergence Micro-rate applications when comparestandard Micro-rate applied four times gave equal or better weed control and recoverable sugar per acre at similar prod

! Frontier at 25 oz/A or Dual II Magnum at 1qt/A applied as a lay-by in the first of three Micro-rate applications when cthe standard Micro-rate applied four times provided equal weed control and recoverable sugar per acre at slightly less cost, respectively.

Please remember to read and follow label instructions as Dual, Frontier, and some increased rates of Betamix in the Micro-labeled for use on sugar beet.

a Abbreviations for Tables 2-6:Colq, common lambsquarters; Rrpw, redroot pigweed; Vema, venice mallow; Grft, green foxtail; Gift, giant foxtail; am sp., amaranthInj., sugar beet injury; LTM, loss to molasses; RST, recoverable sugar per ton; RSA, recoverable sugar per acre; EBN, eastern black ni

Click forMain Menu

45

ion to the program.

each of thewith ate at various

rate grassield data

acy and

similar cost

d to theuct cost.

ompared toor equal

rate are not

us species;ghtshade

46

Table 2. Efficacy and injury data for the Additions, Variations, and Modifications to the Micro-rate trial, Gluek location.Colq % Rr % Ve % Gr % Colq % Rr % Ve % %

TREATMENT RATE 1a mean pw1 mean ma1 mean ft1 mean 2 mean pw2 mean ma2 mean Inj. Mean

Weed Free Check 91.8 104.1 89.3 103.2 93.0 115.1 95.5 107.3 94.5 120.6 94.5 124.7 94.5 135.0 0.0 0.0Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 51.3 58.2 35.0 40.5 41.3 51.1 46.3 52.0 36.3 46.3 36.3 47.8 20.0 28.6 1.3 18.5Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 77.5 88.0 76.8 88.8 66.3 82.0 73.8 82.8 70.0 89.3 63.8 84.1 60.0 85.7 3.8 55.6Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (4X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 87.5 99.3 90.5 104.7 81.3 100.6 94.0 105.6 82.5 105.3 75.0 98.9 71.3 101.8 6.3 92.6Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 90.8 103.0 88.8 102.6 86.8 107.4 94.5 106.1 76.3 97.3 77.5 102.2 78.8 112.5 8.8 129.6

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 88.5 100.5 88.8 102.6 80.8 100.0 91.3 102.5 63.8 81.4 56.3 74.2 60.0 85.7 8.8 129.6c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO



a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyledon 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 90.8 103.0 86.3 99.8 83.8 103.7 87.3 98.0 53.8 68.6 55.0 72.6 52.5 75.0 6.3 92.6

c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 88.0 99.9 76.3 88.2 85.0 105.2 86.3 96.9 63.8 81.4 57.5 75.9 57.5 82.2 6.3 92.6c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO


a) Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 1qt./ 12oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 98.0 111.2 96.5 111.6 87.5 108.3 96.3 108.1 90.0 114.9 90.0 118.7 80.8 115.4 7.5 111.1c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO(2X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 86.0 97.6 82.3 95.1 73.8 91.3 81.3 91.3 87.5 111.7 85.0 112.1 63.8 91.1 5.0 74.1Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO(3X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 95.0 107.8 94.3 109.0 82.0 101.5 94.8 106.4 92.3 117.7 91.0 120.1 70.0 100.0 12.5 185.2Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO(4X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 99.0 112.4 97.3 112.5 93.5 115.8 97.5 109.5 94.5 120.6 90.0 118.7 84.8 121.1 12.5 185.2

Dual II Mag+Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 1 qt.+8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO/ 88.0 99.9 95.8 110.7 81.5 100.9 92.5 103.9 85.0 108.5 76.3 100.6 61.3 87.5 8.8 129.6Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 84.0 95.3 88.5 102.4 73.8 91.3 96.0 107.8 71.3 90.9 70.0 92.3 57.5 82.2 7.5 111.1Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+12 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 92.3 104.7 92.5 107.0 86.3 106.8 95.3 107.0 96.0 122.5 94.8 125.0 91.3 130.4 3.8 55.6Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO



Mean 88.1 86.5 80.8 89.0 78.4 75.8 70.0 6.8C.V. % 12.2 13.1 13.6 11.8 19.9 19.4 22.4 96.8

LSD (0.05) 15.2 16.0 15.5 14.8 22.1 20.8 22.2 9.2

47

Table 3. Yield and quality data for the Additions, Variations, and Modifications to the Micro-rate trial, Gluek location.Tons Sugar Sugar LTM RST RST RSA RSA

TREATMENT RATE Tons % mean % % mean LTMa % mean LBS % mean LBS % meanWeed Free Check 26.2 97.83 14.93 97.64 1.25 102.42 273.6 97.23 7188.6 95.56Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 21.66 80.89 15.8 103.34 1.18 96.75 292.4 103.91 6233.9 82.87Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 25.37 94.74 14.78 96.70 1.25 103.00 270.6 96.16 6875.6 91.40Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (4X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 26.21 97.89 15.13 98.98 1.22 100.45 278.2 98.85 7293.7 96.96Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 26.27 98.10 14.66 95.88 1.27 104.31 267.8 95.15 7026.4 93.40a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 27.33 102.08 15.43 100.95 1.21 99.05 284.5 101.11 7758.2 103.13c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 27.95 104.39 14.81 96.89 1.25 102.83 271.2 96.37 7620.2 101.30c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 24 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 27.22 101.66 15.34 100.34 1.22 99.87 282.5 100.38 7694.5 102.29c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO – Cotyledon 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 25.77 96.22 15.2 99.42 1.23 100.69 279.5 99.32 7188.8 95.56c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 26.21 97.90 15.34 100.33 1.22 99.95 282.4 100.37 7385.9 98.18c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 27.63 103.20 15.94 104.28 1.16 95.60 295.6 105.03 8111.1 107.82c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 1qt./ 12oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 30.49 113.87 15.74 102.94 1.18 97.16 291.1 103.44 8853.6 117.69c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSODual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 27.15 101.41 14.58 95.36 1.28 104.97 266 94.53 7213.1 95.89Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 30.11 112.43 15.59 102.01 1.20 98.31 288 102.34 8670 115.25Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (4X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 27.98 104.50 15.77 103.13 1.18 97.00 291.7 103.66 8166.3 108.56Dual II Mag+Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 1 qt.+8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO/ 23.52 87.82 15.08 98.65 1.23 100.78 277.1 98.47 6473.3 86.05Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 23.39 87.34 16.17 105.77 1.14 94.04 300.5 106.79 7030.2 93.45Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+12 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 27.98 104.50 15.27 99.90 1.22 100.45 280.9 99.83 7853.9 104.40Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO



Mean 26.78 15.29 1.2 281.4 7522.6C.V. % 10.03 6.07 6.09 7.12 10.96LSD (0.05) 3.80 1.31 1.10 28.35 1165.90

48

Table 4. Efficacy and injury data for the Additions, Variations, and Modifications to the Micro-rate trial, Renville location.% am % % am % % %

TREATMENT RATE Gift1a mean sp.1 mean Inj1 mean sp.2 mean Gift2 mean Inj.2 meanWeed Free Check 74.0 102.8 69.6 95.2 0.0 0.0 92.8 145.9 77.8 112.3 0.0 0.0Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 42.5 59.0 43.8 59.8 0.0 0.0 22.5 35.4 40.0 57.8 0.0 0.0Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 72.5 100.7 72.8 99.5 0.0 0.0 57.0 89.7 61.3 88.5 0.0 0.0Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (4X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 80.8 112.2 77.5 106.0 0.0 0.0 72.3 113.6 81.3 117.4 0.0 0.0Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 70.3 97.6 67.3 92.0 0.0 0.0 43.3 68.0 61.8 89.2 0.0 0.0a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 69.0 95.8 68.5 93.7 0.0 0.0 59.8 94.0 66.0 95.4 0.0 0.0c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 82.0 113.9 79.8 109.0 1.3 55.2 69.3 108.9 87.5 126.4 0.0 0.0c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 24 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 77.3 107.3 78.9 107.9 0.0 0.0 64.0 100.7 71.0 102.6 0.0 0.0c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyledon 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 57.0 79.2 62.4 85.3 0.0 0.0 49.0 77.1 53.5 77.3 0.0 0.0c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 59.8 83.0 65.5 89.6 0.0 0.0 42.5 66.9 51.8 74.8 0.0 0.0c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 78.5 109.0 81.9 112.0 0.0 0.0 76.8 120.7 80.0 115.6 0.0 0.0c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 1qt./ 12oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 84.0 116.7 86.5 118.3 13.3 585.6 88.3 138.8 84.8 122.4 4.3 971.4c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSODual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 77.8 108.0 76.9 105.1 0.0 0.0 68.5 107.7 74.8 108.0 0.0 0.0Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 86.3 119.8 91.9 125.6 2.3 99.4 89.0 140.0 85.3 123.2 0.0 0.0Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (4X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 88.0 122.2 90.9 124.3 5.5 243.1 92.3 145.1 87.0 125.7 0.8 171.4Dual II Mag+Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 1 qt.+8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 81.0 112.5 83.3 113.8 2.5 110.5 68.3 107.4 70.0 101.1 0.0 0.0Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO 44.3 61.5 32.3 44.1 0.0 0.0 13.8 21.6 38.5 55.6 0.0 0.0Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+12 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO 63.8 88.6 70.8 96.7 1.3 55.2 64.0 100.7 66.0 95.4 0.0 0.0Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO



Mean 72.0 73.1 2.3 63.6 69.2 0.4

C.V. % 23.3 21.4 225.5 35.5 29.0 449.7

LSD (0.05) 23.8 22.2 7.2 31.9 28.4 2.8

49

Table 5. Efficacy and injury data for the Additions, Variations, and Modifications to the Micro-rate trial, Buffalo Lake location.% am % % Colq % am % % %

TREATMENT RATE Colq1a mean sp.1 mean EBN1 mean 2 mean sp.2 mean EBN2 mean Inj. meanWeed Free Check 99.0 120.8 99.0 129.5 99.0 101.3 99.0 114.3 99.0 124.9 99.0 101.8 0.0 0.0Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 63.5 77.5 62.0 81.1 96.8 99.0 75.0 86.6 64.0 80.7 93.0 95.7 0.8 56.1Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 67.5 82.4 63.0 82.4 99.0 101.3 73.5 84.8 62.5 78.8 94.3 96.9 0.3 18.7Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (4X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 87.3 106.5 78.5 102.7 99.0 101.3 91.5 105.6 80.0 100.9 99.0 101.8 0.3 18.7Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 79.0 96.4 71.5 93.5 99.0 101.3 84.5 97.5 76.0 95.9 94.3 96.9 1.5 112.1a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 80.5 98.2 79.5 104.0 99.0 101.3 83.8 96.7 81.3 102.5 95.5 98.2 3.0 224.3c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 95.8 116.8 87.0 113.8 99.0 101.3 94.5 109.1 89.0 112.3 95.5 98.2 2.0 149.5c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 24 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 73.0 89.1 69.5 90.9 90.8 92.9 82.3 94.9 69.0 87.0 94.3 96.9 0.8 56.1c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyledon 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 84.5 103.1 68.8 89.9 96.8 99.0 89.8 103.6 79.3 100.0 96.8 99.5 0.5 37.4c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 74.3 90.6 69.5 90.9 96.8 99.0 77.3 89.2 71.5 90.2 99.0 101.8 0.8 56.1c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 90.3 110.1 82.0 107.3 99.0 101.3 94.0 108.5 86.0 108.5 99.0 101.8 2.8 205.6c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 1qt./ 12oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 89.0 108.6 81.5 106.6 99.0 101.3 89.5 103.3 81.5 102.8 99.0 101.8 3.0 224.3c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSODual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 73.3 89.4 71.8 93.9 99.0 101.3 75.3 86.9 71.8 90.5 99.0 101.8 0.8 56.1Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 84.8 103.4 84.5 110.5 99.0 101.3 91.0 105.1 88.3 111.3 99.0 101.8 2.0 149.5Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (4X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 91.5 111.6 83.0 108.6 99.0 101.3 94.8 109.4 88.3 111.3 99.0 101.8 1.8 130.8Dual II Mag+Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 1 qt.+8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO/ 72.5 88.5 68.8 89.9 93.0 95.2 80.0 92.4 73.8 93.0 99.0 101.8 0.5 37.4Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 68.0 83.0 64.5 84.4 94.3 96.5 79.8 92.1 70.8 89.2 93.0 95.7 0.3 18.7Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOFrontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+12 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 91.5 111.6 82.0 107.3 99.0 101.3 95.5 110.2 83.8 105.6 99.0 101.8 3.8 280.4Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 93.8 114.4 86.3 112.8 99.0 101.3 95.8 110.5 88.8 112.0 99.0 101.8 2.3 168.2Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 80.5 98.2 76.3 99.8 99.0 101.3 86.0 99.3 81.3 102.5 99.0 101.8 0.0 0.0Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Mean 82.0 76.4 97.7 86.6 79.3 97.2 1.3

C.V. % 9.9 12.7 5.1 10.6 13.8 6.0 118.7

LSD (0.05) 14.0 13.8 7.0 14.9 15.5 8.2 2.3

50

Table 6. Yield and quality data for the Additions, Variations, and Modifications to the Micro-rate trial, Buffalo Lake location.Tons Sugar Sugar LTM RST RST RSA RSA

TREATMENT RATE Tons % mean % % mean LTMa % mean LBS % mean LBS % meanWeed Free Check 29.56 110.38 15.59 98.79 1.19 101.38 287.8 98.58 8466.2 108.16Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 20.24 75.58 15.1 95.72 1.24 104.95 277.3 94.97 5625.7 71.87Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 23.71 88.53 15.66 99.26 1.19 100.87 289.4 99.13 6796.8 86.84Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (4X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 29.31 109.44 15.76 99.90 1.18 100.37 291.6 99.86 8534.7 109.04Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 23.5 87.73 15.61 98.97 1.19 100.96 288.5 98.81 6796.6 86.83a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 27.34 102.10 15 95.05 1.24 105.54 275 94.21 7514.9 96.01c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 30.23 112.89 15.77 99.97 1.18 100.03 291.9 99.97 8825.3 112.75c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 24 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 29.52 110.24 15.35 97.30 1.22 103.25 282.7 96.83 8325.3 106.36c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyledon 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 26.05 97.27 15.94 101.03 1.16 98.84 295.5 101.21 7681 98.13c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 23.63 88.25 15.43 97.84 1.21 102.49 284.5 97.46 6732 86.01c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 24.55 91.67 15.81 100.22 1.18 99.77 292.7 100.26 7206.3 92.07c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 1qt./ 12oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 28.93 108.02 15.95 101.10 1.16 98.84 295.7 101.29 8627.4 110.22c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSODual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 31.82 118.80 15.81 100.23 1.17 99.35 292.8 100.30 9243.5 118.09Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 26.24 97.96 16.42 104.09 1.12 95.44 305.9 104.78 8002.3 102.24Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (4X) 1qt./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 30.8 115.01 16.08 101.94 1.15 97.82 298.6 102.27 9231.4 117.94Dual II Mag+Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 1 qt.+8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO/ 27.91 104.21 16.06 101.83 1.16 98.07 298.2 102.13 8386.3 107.14Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 21.76 81.25 16.07 101.85 1.15 97.90 298.3 102.17 6514.2 83.23Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOFrontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+12 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 25.95 96.90 15.58 98.77 1.19 101.21 287.8 98.57 7514.2 96.00Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO



Mean 26.78 15.78 1.2 292 7827.21

C.V. % 12.73 5.91 6.56 6.91 14.91

LSD (0.05) 4.82 1.32 0.11 28.55 1651.20

MICRO-RATE ECONOMICS

OBJECTIVE:

Evaluate and compare the weed control efficacy and economic viability of the standard Micro-rate and the Micro-ratcomponents are eliminated from the first two applications to reduce cost.


The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replicates. Treatment applications made to theof 6-row by 30ft long experimental units with a bicycle whee-type sprayer delivering 8.5 gpa at 40 p.s.i. through 8001 flat fanTreatments consisted of the standard Micro-rate applied three times, the Micro-rate without Upbeet in the first two of three apthe Micro-rate without Stinger in the first two of three applications. At the Raymond site an additional rescue-type treatment June 16 which consisted of Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+ MSO at 2pt + ¼ oz. + 2.6 oz. + 1.5% because of poor weed control dufrom an oat cover crop. A list of planting dates, treatments dates, and evaluation dates can be found in table 1. The treatmentcontrol, sugar beet injury, and the relative product cost of each treatment per acre can be found in tables two and three.

Table 1. Specifications for the Micro-rate economics weed control experiment.

E x p . P l a n t in g# L o c a t io n D a t e 1 2 3 1 2

0 0 3 6 R a y m o n d 4 / 2 6 5 / 2 0 5 / 2 7 6 / 2 6 / 2 0 6 / 2 70 0 3 7 B u f f L a k e 4 / 2 9 6 / 7 6 / 1 4 6 / 2 1 7 / 7 7 / 1 9

P O S T w e e dc o n t r o l t r t m n t s


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Weed control from herbicide treatments at the Raymond site was somewhat confounded by aggressive growth of an oat coverlocations, leaving the Stinger out of the first two of three micro-rate applications tended to provide better weed control than thrate. It is now known why this would occur since one would expect the addition of Stinger to each applicaton to increase weeexperiments intend to look at this further.

SUMMARY:

! Results from the two locations were similar in regard to the tendency for greater control from the Micro-rate when Stingethe first two of three applications.

! However, at the Raymond site there was no advantage to late season common lambsquarters control among any of the trethe rescue-type treatment rate. (At the Buffalo Lake site the common lambsquarters infestation was not as heavy).

! This data appears to indicate that if a product can be left out of the Micro-rate to cut cost it might be Stinger in one or botapplications. However, doing so may result in less common lambsquarters control.

! Increasing rates of each component of the Micro-rate to beyond economic levels was able to achieve good late season wemuch increased financial and phytotoxilogical risk.

Click forMain Menu

51

e when specific

center four rows nozzles.plications, andwas applied one to interference list, rates, weed

crop. At bothe standard micro-d control. Future

r was left out of

atments except at

h of the first two

ed control but at

52

Table 2. Influence of Micro-rate modifications of weed control, sugar beet injury, and cost, Raymond.Am sp. Colq Cover Relative

% % Cover Crop Am. Am sp.2 Co Colq2 Inj. ProductTREATMENT RATE Am sp.1a mean Colq mean Crop % mean sp.2 % mean lq2 % mean Inj. % mean Cost per Acre

Weed free check 75.50 107.32 76.00 99.80 76.00 102.84 99.00 140.13 99.00 140.13 0.00 0.00a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 67.75 96.30 75.25 98.82 68.75 93.03 52.00 73.60 50.00 70.77 0.00 0.00 $57.75a) Betamix+Upbeet+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.5% MSO 74.50 105.90 77.00 101.12 78.25 105.89 66.00 93.42 53.50 75.73 0.00 0.00 $47.67b) Betamix+Upbeet+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 65.75 93.46 75.25 98.82 71.50 96.75 53.75 76.08 52.50 74.31 0.00 0.00 $46.51b) Betamix+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 68.26 97.02 77.25 101.44 75.00 101.49 82.50 116.77 86.50 122.43 17.50 500.00 $107.04b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+28d 2pt.+1/4 oz.+2.6 oz.+1.5% MSO

Mean 70.35 76.15 73.90 70.65 68.30 3.50C.V. % 6.30 5.66 6.12 17.59 19.65 110.66LSD (0.05) 6.83 6.65 6.96 19.14 20.68 5.97a Abbreviations: Amsp, amaranthus species; Colq, common lambsquarters; Inj., Injury.

Table 3. Influence of Micro-rate modifications of weed control, sugar beet injury, and cost, Buffalo Lake.Rrpw1 Colq1 Relative

% % Grft1 Rr Rrpw2 Co Colq2 Grft2 ProductTREATMENT RATE Rrpw1a mean Colq1 mean Grft1 % mean pw2 % mean lq2 % mean Grft2 % mean Cost per Acre

Weed free check 88.25 113.32 95.50 101.26 88.75 108.98 98.50 119.21 99.00 100.51 98.25 113.83a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 73.50 94.38 92.25 97.81 78.75 96.70 80.75 97.73 98.00 99.49 86.25 99.93 $57.75a) Betamix+Upbeet+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.5% MSO 77.50 99.52 96.75 102.58 82.25 101.00 77.75 94.10 98.00 99.49 82.25 95.29 $47.67b) Betamix+Upbeet+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 72.25 92.78 92.75 98.34 76.00 93.32 73.50 88.96 99.00 100.51 78.50 90.95 $46.51b) Betamix+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Mean 77.88 94.31 81.44 82.63 98.50 86.31C.V. % 8.95 5.40 6.20 5.72 1.51 5.41LSD (0.05) 11.15 8.15 8.08 7.55 2.38 7.47a Abbreviations: Rrpw, redroot pigweed; Colq, common lambsquarters; Grft, green foxtail.

MICRO-RATE APPLICATION TIMING

OBJECTIVE:

Determine the influence of application timing of the Micro-rate and/or Betamix rate in the Micro-rate on weed contr

Table 1. Specifications for theMicro-rate application timingtrial.

Task Performed Date

Cotyledon Applic. 5/15Cotyl + 5d Applic. 5/20Cotyl + 7d Applic. 5/22Cotyl + 10d Applic. 5/25Cotyl + 12d Applic. 5/27Cotyl + 14d Applic. 5/29Cotyl + 15d Applic. 5/30Cotyl + 17d Applic. 6/1Cotyl + 19d Applic. 6/3Cotyl + 22d Applic. 6/6Cotyl + 24d Applic. 6/8Cotyl + 29d Applic. 6/13Evaluation date 6/27

SUMMARY:

! Herbicide weed control efficacy levels were generally low due to the relative late evaluation date. The evaluation was taprovide adequate time for the cotyledon plus 29 day application to exhibit full herbicide potential.

! The Micro-rate initiated at cotyledon plus 5 days beet stage and applied twice more at cotyledon plus 12 and the cotyledoprovided the best control of both the amaranthus species (71%) and common lambsquarters (85.5%).

! Delaying the standard Micro-rate generally did not influence amaranthus control when the Micro-rate was applied three tappears to indicate that Upbeet activity on pigweed species is sufficient to allow for delayed program initiation without a

! Delaying the standard Micro-rate beyond 5 days after cotyledon beet stage had a detrimental influence on common lambsThe reduction in control increased as delay in initiating the program increased beyond 5 days. This indicates that the comMicro-rate that have activity on common lambsquarters are not sufficient to allow for delay in program initiation.

! Increasing Betamix rate in the Micro-rate in each of two applications was only partially able to offset the influence of delinitiation on common lambsquarters control.

! Determination of what stage designates cotyledon beets or weeds is subject to the interpretation of the observer. Howeveindicate that delaying the initiation of the Micro-rate program 5 days after cotyledon sugar beet was long enough to movecool weather period into a period more suitable for weed control, or possibly extended the period of applications in orderemerging weeds.


The experiment was a randomized complete blockdesign near Raymond. The experiment was planted on April24. Applications were made to the center four rows of six-row by 30 ft experimental units with a bicycle wheel-typesprayer delivering 8.5 gpa at 40 p.s.i. through 8001 flat fannozzles. The list of treatment dates and evaluation date canbe found in table 1.

Treatments included the standard Micro-rate or theMicro-rate with increased rates of Betamix initiated at thefollowing beet stages…cotyledon, cotyledon plus 5 days,cotyledon plus 10 days, or cotyledon plus 15 days followed byeither one or two more applications at a seven day interval.Treatments, rates, weed control, and analysis are presented intable 2.

Click forMain Menu

53

ol.

ken at this time to

n plus 19 days

imes. Thisffecting control.

quarters control.ponents of the

aying program

r, this data may out of a very to control late

54

Table 2. Amaranthus and lambsquarter control from various Micro-rate timings, Raymond.

Am sp. Colq% %

TREATMENT RATE Am sp.a mean Colq mean

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 62.3 93.2 60.0 85.0b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+5d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 71.0 106.3 85.5 121.1b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+12d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOb) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+17d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+10d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 68.3 102.1 75.5 106.9b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+17d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+24d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+15d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 70.0 104.8 68.8 97.4b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+22d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+29d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+5d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 65.8 98.4 57.5 81.4b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+12d 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO



Mean 66.8 70.6

C.V. % 20.0 15.8

LSD (0.05) 19.6 16.4a Abbreviations: Amsp, amaranthus species; Colq, common lambsquarters.

CONTROL OPTIONS FOR EASTERN BLACK NIGHTSHADE AND OTHER WEED SP

OBJECTIVE:

Assess the performance of various weed control programs and application timings in a field with an inherently heaof Eastern Black Nightshade in addition to other weed problems.

Table 1. Specifications for theControl options for Eastern BlackNightshade and other weeds trial.

Task Performed Date

POST Trtmt # 1 5/6POST Trtmt # 2 5/12POST Trtmt # 3 5/19Evaluation Date 1 6/2Evaluation Date 2 6/16

SUMMARY:

! As indicated in other trials, it appears that weed control programs that are Micro-rate based require program initiation ncotyledon weed stage to be most effective.

! Addition of Dual II Magnum or Frontier in the first Micro-rate application did not provide increased weed control suchinitiation could be delayed nor the number of applications be reduced without adverse affect to weed control. This is tosince neither Dual nor Frontier have activity on previously emerged weeds.

! The treatments that provided the most consistent weed control were the micro-rate beginning at cotyledon weed stage fmore applications seven days apart, and the Micro-rate beginning at cotyledon weed stage followed by two more applicdays apart with Dual II Magnum in the third application.

! The Micro-rate beginning at cotyledon weed stage followed by two more applications seven days apart and the Micro-at cotyledon weed stage followed by two more applications seven days apart with Dual II Magnum in the third applicanearly identical in control of each species evaluated.

! Dual II Magnum or Frontier when applied in the first of only two Micro-rates beginning at the cotyledon plus 7-day weprovided the poorest late season redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters control. This indicates that the residual aeither Dual or Frontier alone will not compensate for reducing micro-rate applications to less than three.

! Redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters control by the second evaluation date was significantly lower than other hprograms tested when either Dual II Magnum or Frontier were applied in the first of just two Micro-rate applications becotyledon plus 7-day weed stage.


The experiment was a randomized complete blockdesign with four replicates set into a previously planted fieldof sugar beet near Olivia. Applications were made to thecenter four rows of six-row by 30 ft experimental units with abicycle wheel-type sprayer delivering 8.5 gpa at 40 p.s.i.through 8001 flat fan nozzles. The list of treatment dates andevaluation dates can be found in table 1. Treatments includedthe Micro-rate at three timings, Dual II Magnum lay-by in thefirst Micro-rate at two rates and timings, Dual II lay-by in thelast of three Micro-rates, and Frontier lay-by at 25 oz in thefirst Micro-rate at two timings. Treatments, rates, sugar beetinjury, weed control, and analysis are presented in table 2.

CM

ECIES

1

vy infestation

ear the

that program be expected

ollowed by twoations seven

rate beginningtion were

ed stagectivity from

erbicideginning at the

lick forain Menu

56

Table 2. Eastern Black Nightshade control options, Olivia.Ebn1 RRPW1 INJ1 Ebn2 YEFT2 RRPW2 COLQ2

% RR % % % YE % RR % CO %TREATMENT RATE EBN1a mean PW1 mean INJ1 mean EBN2 mean FT2 mean PW2 mean LQ2 mean

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 98.75 104.12 96.75 110.335 2.5 76.19 99.00 104.83 93.75 109.81 92.00 135.4809 94.00 138.426b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 87.00 91.73 84.50 96.3649 3.75 114.29 75.00 79.418 83.00 97.2182 28.75 42.33778 74.00 108.974b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 96.25 101.48 88.50 100.927 1.25 38.095 95.00 100.6 72.00 84.3338 53.75 79.15324 94.25 138.794c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOa) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+28d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Dual II Mag+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ - Cotyl 27 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 98.00 103.33 82.75 94.3692 2.50 76.19 98.00 103.77 80.25 93.9971 77.50 114.1279 94.50 139.162b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Dual II Mag+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ - Cotyl+7d 1 qt.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 94.25 99.374 71.00 80.9694 1.25 38.095 96.75 102.45 90.75 106.296 67.00 98.66544 38.50 56.6958b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ - Cotyl 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 86.50 91.203 89.50 102.067 2.50 76.19 96.00 101.65 78.00 91.3616 76.75 113.0235 91.25 134.376b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ - Cotyl+7d 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 99.00 104.38 95.50 108.909 5.00 152.38 96.75 102.45 88.50 103.66 55.00 80.99402 32.50 47.8601b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 99.00 104.38 93.00 106.058 7.50 228.57 99.00 104.83 96.75 113.324 92.50 136.2172 91.25 134.376b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Dual II Mag+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 27 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/

Mean 94.84 87.69 3.28 94.44 85.38 67.91 76.28C.V. % 12.06 20.49 153.

178.31 23.80 30.42 32.49

LSD (0.05) 16.70 26.22 7.33 11.45 29.66 30.15 36.164

a Abbreviations: EBN, eastern black nightshade; RRPW, redroot pigweed; INJ, sugar beet injury; YEFT, yellow foxtail; COLQ, common lambsquarters.

COVER CROP CONTROL OPTIONS WITH MICRO-RATE MODIFICATIONS

OBJECTIVE:

The initial objective of this experiment was to expound upon another experiment that was investigating weed control eadditions and modifications to the Micro-rate through incorporation of additional herbicide variations. The test was placed intowith an oat cover crop. However, the oat cover crop was more aggressive than expected and confounded weed control observathe only data that was representative of the treatments was the control of the oat cover crop.

Table 1. Specifications for theCover crop control options withMicro-rate modifications trial.

Task Performed Date

Planting Date 4/24POST Trtmt # 1 5/15POST Trtmt # 2 5/22POST Trtmt # 3 5/30POST Trtmt # 4 6/6Evaluation Date 6/16

SUMMARY:

! Oat cover crop control when the standard Micro-rate was applied two, three, and four times was 51, 62, and 70%, respectiv

! Oat cover crop control from Select grass herbicide at 2 oz when applied with the Micro-rate in the first three of four, the seof four, or the third of four applications was 95, 98, and 91%, respectively.

! Oat cover crop control in this experiment was not significantly different regardless of whether Select grass herbicide at 2 othe Micro-rate in the first three of four, the second and third of four, or the third of four applications.


The experiment was a randomized complete blockdesign with four replicates near Raymond. Applications weremade to the center four rows of six-row by 30 ft experimentalunits with a bicycle wheel-type sprayer delivering 8.5 gpa at40 p.s.i. through 8001 flat fan nozzles. The list of treatmentdates and evaluation date can be found in table 1. Treatmentsincluded the Micro-rate at various application timings andintervals with and without Dual or Frontier applied lay-by inthe first application. In addition, Select was added at 2 oz invarious applications and timings. Treatments, rates, and oatcover crop control are presented in table 2.

Click forMain Menu

57

fficacy of a field seededtions such that

ely.

cond and third

z was added to

58

Table 2. Cover crop control with modifications to the Micro-rate.

Cover Crop Cover CropTREATMENT RATE Control % mean

Weed Free Check 83.00 126.9Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 50.50 77.2Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 62.25 95.1Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (4X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 70.00 107.0Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 72.00 110.0Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 16 oz.+1/4oz.+2oz.+1.5% MSO 57.00 87.1Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 16 oz.+1/4oz.+2oz.+1.5% MSOBetamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+28d 16 oz.+1/4oz.+2oz.+1.5% MSO

Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 16 oz.+1/4oz.+2oz.+1.5% MSO 5.00 7.6Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+28d 16 oz.+1/4oz.+2oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 66.00 100.9b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 12 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 73.75 112.7b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 24 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.5% MSO 67.50 103.2b) Betamix+Upbeet+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Stinger+MSO - Cotyledon 8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 52.25 79.9b) Betamix+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 63.75 97.4b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO+Select - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO+2oz. 95.00 145.2b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO+Select - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO+2oz.c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO+Select - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO+2oz.c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+28d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 97.75 149.4b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO+Select - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO+2oz.c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO+Select - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO+2oz.c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+28d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

a) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 90.75 138.7b) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOc) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO+Select - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO+2oz.c) Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+28d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Dual II Mag+Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 1 qt.+8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO/ 73.75 112.7Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO/ 67.50 103.2Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO 48.00 73.4Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+7d 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO 62.25 95.1Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOBetamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOBetamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+28d 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+14d 25 oz.+12 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO 50.50 77.2Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+21d 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOBetamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO - Cotyl+28d 16 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Mean 65.4

C.V. % 18.0

LSD (0.05) 16.7

INFLUENCE OF DUAL II MAGNUM RATE AND TIMING ON SUGAR BEET PHYTOTOXICITY AND WE

OBJECTIVE:

Determine best management practices for application rate and timing of Dual II Magnum in regard to weed controland sugar beet yield to assist with management decisions in the occurrence of a Dual label for sugarbeet.


The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replicates. Emergence, percent stand, efficacwas collected from each of two locations planted in 2000. Dual treatments were applied to 11 ft wide by 30 ft long experimapplications were made with a bicycle wheel-type sprayer delivering 8.5 gpa at 40 p.s.i. through 8001 flat fan nozzles. TreaDual II Magnum at 27, 32, and 37 oz./A each applied in the fall and in the spring and were not incorporated to simulate comapplied Dual. All experimental units were treated with three post-emerge Micro-rate applications to maintain weed control.applications consisted of Betamix + Upbeet + Stinger at 8 + 1/8 + 1.3 oz./A and MSO at 1.5% v/v. Post-emergence Micro-rapplied to the whole plot with a 33 ft. plot sprayer sprayed perpendicular to rows. The varieties were Beta 5014 at RaymondBuffalo Lake. A list of treatment dates, evaluation dates, and harvest dates for each location can be found in table 1. Weedinjury, and yield data for each site can be found in tables two through five.

Table 1. Specifications for the Influence of Dual II Magnum rate and timing on sugar beet phyweed control experiment.

F a l l S p r . H a n dE x p . D u a l D u a l P l a n t H a r v

# L o c a t io n T r t s T r t s D a t e 1 2 3 1 2 3 D a t e

0 0 2 7 R a y m o n d 1 1 / 1 4 / 2 5 4 / 2 6 5 / 2 4 5 / 3 1 6 / 7 5 / 2 3 6 / 4 6 / 2 1 9 / 1 50 0 2 8 B u f f L a k e 1 1 / 1 4 / 1 2 4 / 2 9 5 / 2 4 5 / 3 1 6 / 7 5 / 2 2 5 / 3 1 6 / 1 3 9 / 1 8


P O S T w e e dc o n t r o l t r t m n t s


Results from the 37 oz/A spring Dual treatment at Buffalo Lake was not consistent with weed control and emergence trendsincreased Dual rates of other treatments and sites. Thus, this specific data (shaded in table 4) is suspect. It appears that an amissed or may have been misapplied.

SUMMARY:

! Weed or cover crop control increased or tended to increase as Dual rate increased regardless of timing.

! Weed or cover crop control at a specific Dual rate was generally greater when applied in the spring vs. fall.

! Sugar beet emergence and percent stand generally decreased as Dual rate increased regardless of spring or fall applicati

! RSA generally increased with Dual rate regardless of Dual application timing thus indicating yield was more strongly rthan sugar beet emergence.

! RSA from fall applications of Dual was generally greater than from spring applications at Buffalo Lake but was similaraveraged across Dual rates.

* Dual is not labeled for use on sugar beet.

Click forMain Menu

59

ED CONTROL

, sugar beet injury,

y, and yield dataental units. Dualtments consisted ofmercial use of fall The Micro-rateate treatments were and Beta 4705 at control, sugar beet

totoxicity and

observed frompplication was

on.

elated weed control

at Raymond when

60

Table 2. Emergence and stand count data for the Dual by Rate by Timing trial, Raymond location. 0027

% % Cover Crop Cover Crop % %Emerge* Emrg 5/23 Stand Stnd 5/23 Control Cntrl 5/23 Stand Stnd 6/4 Inj Inj 6/21

TREATMENT Timing 23-May % mean 23-May % mean 23-May % mean 4-Jun % mean 21-Jun % mean

Dual II Magnum: 27 oz./A Fall/not incorporated 48.65 106.90 84.50 100.42 23 73.99 42.908 101.14 1.25 70.00Dual II Magnum: 32 oz./A Fall/not incorporated 42.23 92.79 88.00 104.58 23.75 76.41 44.253 104.31 1.25 70.00Dual II Magnum: 37 oz./A Fall/not incorporated 45.95 100.95 86.00 102.21 34 109.38 44.598 105.13 2.50 140.00Dual II Magnum: 27 oz./A Spring / PRE 46.29 101.70 85.25 101.32 23.25 74.80 45.945 108.30 2.25 126.00Dual II Magnum: 32 oz./A Spring / PRE 40.88 89.82 83.00 98.64 33.75 108.58 38.515 90.79 2.00 112.00Dual II Magnum: 37 oz./A Spring / PRE 50.00 109.86 78.25 93.00 48.75 156.84 39.865 93.97 1.25 70.00Weed-free Check N/A 44.60 97.99 84.00 99.83 0 0.00 40.878 96.36 2.00 112.00

Mean 45.51 84.14 31.08 42.42 1.79C.V. % 11.55563 7.337595 32.87918 16.005 128.1666LSD (0.05) 7.7336 9.079 13.659 9.9844 3.3655* Emerge = emerged and living sugar beet plants per 24 ft. row.Stand = visual estimate of percent of the original planted seed.

Table 3. Yield and quality data for the Dual by Rate by Timing trial, Raymond location. 0027

Tons Sugar Sugar LTM RST RST RSA RSATREATMENT Timing Tons % mean % % mean LTM* % mean LBS % mean LBS % mean

Dual II Magnum: 27 oz./A Fall/not incorporated 26 95.41 15.95 101.40 1.16 98.31 295.83 101.66 7668 96.96Dual II Magnum: 32 oz./A Fall/not incorporated 26.09 95.74 15.48 98.41 1.2 101.69 285.65 98.16 7433.9 94.00Dual II Magnum: 37 oz./A Fall/not incorporated 28.83 105.80 15.74 100.06 1.18 100.00 291.25 100.08 8378.6 105.95Dual II Magnum: 27 oz./A Spring / PRE 26.76 98.20 15.21 96.69 1.22 103.39 279.75 96.13 7464.8 94.39Dual II Magnum: 32 oz./A Spring / PRE 23.83 87.45 16.1 102.35 1.15 97.46 299.03 102.76 7074.7 89.46Dual II Magnum: 37 oz./A Spring / PRE 31.46 115.45 15.59 99.11 1.19 100.85 287.88 98.92 9062 114.59Weed-free Check N/A 27.8 102.02 16.04 101.97 1.16 98.31 297.7 102.30 8274.9 104.64

Mean 27.25 15.73 1.18 291.01 7908.13C.V. % 13.77 4.61 5.12 5.39 13LSD (0.05) 5.52 1.07 0.09 23.08 1511.4* Abbreviations: LTM, loss to molasses; RST, recoverable sugar per ton, RSA, recoverable sugar per acre.

61

Table 4. Emergence, stand count, and weed control data for the Dual by Rate by Timing trial, Buffalo Lake. 0028

% %Emerge Emrg

5/22Stand Stnd 5/22 Colq EBN Rrpw Emerge Emrg 5/31 Emerge Emrg 6/13

TREATMENT Timing 22-May % mean 22-May % mean Colq % mean EBN % mean Rrpw % mean 31-May % mean 13-Jun % mean

Dual II Magnum: 27 oz./A Fall/not incorporated 67.34 107.55 88.17 107.03 90.67 103.42 85.50 93.95 93.00 97.72 66.89 111.47 54.96 110.06Dual II Magnum: 32 oz./A Fall/not incorporated 70.05 111.88 87.67 106.42 88.83 101.33 93.00 102.20 96.50 101.40 58.33 97.21 46.17 92.46Dual II Magnum: 37 oz./A Fall/not incorporated 60.14 96.05 74.50 90.43 93.50 106.66 97.67 107.33 99.00 104.03 57.66 96.09 48.88 97.89Dual II Magnum: 27 oz./A Spring PRE 52.70 84.17 80.50 97.72 77.00 87.83 85.17 93.59 92.67 97.37 54.06 90.09 43.24 86.59Dual II Magnum: 32 oz./A Spring PRE 56.31 89.93 70.67 85.78 91.33 104.18 95.17 104.58 95.84 100.71 61.04 101.72 52.25 104.63Dual II Magnum: 37 oz./A Spring PRE 62.39 99.64 86.33 104.79 84.67 96.58 89.50 98.35 94.00 98.77 61.26 102.09 55.18 110.50Weed-free Check N/A 69.37 110.79 88.83 107.83 76.17 N/A 67.50 N/A 76.00 N/A 60.81 101.34 48.87 97.87

Mean 62.61 82.38 87.67 91.00 95.17 60.01 49.94C.V. % 24.6 21.89 12.71 10.82 9.58 17.53 21.57LSD (0.05) 18.05 21.13 12.81 11.12 10.38 12.33 12.63

* Abbreviations: Colq, common lambsquarters; EBN, eastern black nightshade; Rrpw, redroot pigweed.Emerge = emerged and living sugar beet plants per 24 ft row.Stand= visual estimate of percent of the original planted seed.

Table 5. Yield and quality data for the Dual by Rate by Timing trial, Buffalo Lake. 0028

Tons Sugar Sugar LTM RST RST RSA RSATREATMENT Timing Tons % mean % % mean LTM* % mean LBS % mean LBS % mean

Dual II Magnum: 27 oz./A Fall/notincorporated

19.845 130.93 12.97 102.11 1.356 99.27 232.36 102.46 4608.3 132.39


16.523 109.01 12.91 101.61 1.357 99.34 231.06 101.88 3859.8 110.88


15.828 104.43 13.14 103.44 1.297 94.95 236.92 104.47 3766.1 108.19

Dual II Magnum: 27 oz./A Spring PRE 10.26 67.69 11.84 93.21 1.428 104.54 208.29 91.84 2229.8 64.06Dual II Magnum: 32 oz./A Spring PRE 12.67 83.59 12.57 98.96 1.379 100.95 223.89 98.72 2845.3 81.74Dual II Magnum: 37 oz./A Spring PRE 14.758 97.37 12.75 100.32 1.377 100.81 227.39 100.27 3375.2 96.96Weed-free Check N/A 16.218 107.00 12.75 100.33 1.367 100.07 227.62 100.37 3681.8 105.77

Mean 15.16 12.71 1.37 226.79 3480.91C.V. % 24.98 9.61 6.47 11.37 29.10LSD (0.05) 4.44 1.43 0.10 30.22 1187.40

* Abbreviations: LTM, loss to molasses; RST, recoverable sugar per ton, RSA, recoverable sugar per acre.

INFLUENCE OF SPRING TIMING ON DUAL II MAGNUM PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVE:

Determine the best timing for spring applied Dual II Magnum applications to maximize sugar beet yield, weed contrminimize sugar beet pytotoxicity in the occurrence of a Dual label in sugar beet.

Table 1. Specifications for theInfluence of Spring Timing onDual II Magnum Performance.

Task Performed Date

PPI Dual 4/25Planting Date 5/3POST Trtmt # 1 5/30POST Trtmt # 2 6/6POST Trtmt # 3 6/13Evaluation Date 1 6/20Evaluation Date 2 7/6Harvest Date 9/15

SUMMARY:

! Dual II Magnum applied PPI caused the greatest sugar beet injury at both evaluation dates.

! At the first evaluation date, Dual II Magnum applied lay-by in the first of three Micro-rates caused greater sugar beet injuDual II Magnum was applied in either the second or third of three Micro-rates.

! By the second evaluation date, Dual II Magnum injury was similar when applied lay-by regardless of which POST Microapplied with.

! Weed control when averaged across weed species was generally equal between Dual II Magnum applied PPI followed byrates and Dual II Magnum lay-by in the first of three Micro-rates.

! Dual II Magnum PPI followed by three Micro-rate applications and Dual II Magnum lay-by in the first of three Micro-ratgreater weed control than Dual II Magnum in the second or third of three Micro-rate applications when averaged across w

! RSA tended to be greatest when Dual II Magnum was used lay-by in the first of three Micro-rate applications.

! It appears that when comparing Dual II Magnum PPI followed by three Micro-rate applications to Dual II Magnum in theMicro-rates each at 1 qt/A; the negative influence from the excessive injury caused by Dual II Magnum PPI followed byrate applications was more important in determining yield than the weed control that it obtained (refer to summary point


The experiment was a randomized complete blockdesign established at one location. Injury, weed control, andyield data were collected from the experiment. All treatmentswere applied to center seven feet of 11 ft wide by 30 ft longexperimental units and were made with a bicycle wheel-typesprayer delivering 8.5 gpa at 40 p.s.i. through 8001 flat fannozzles. The list of planting date, treatment dates, evaluationdates, and harvest date can be found in table 1. All treatmentsconsisted of three post-emergence Micro-rate applicationswith Dual at 1qt/A applied either spring PPI or as lay-by in thefirst, second, or third Micro-rate application. The Micro-rateapplications consisted of Betamix + Upbeet + Stinger at 8 +1/8 + 1.3 oz/A plus MSO adjuvant at 1.5.% v/v. The varietyplanted was Beta 5296. The treatments, rates, sugar beetinjury, weed control, yield data, and analysis are presented inTables 2 & 3.

Click forMain Menu

62

ol, and

ry than when

-rate it was

three Micro-

es gaveeed species.

first of three three Micro-# 1or table 2).

63

Table 2 . Dual spring timing trial, 0031Inj 1 GIFT1 EBN Ltsw Inj 2 GIFT2

% RRPW RRPW 1 GIFT % EBN % LTSW % % RRPW RRPW 2 GIFT %TREATMENT RATE Inj 1* mean 1 % mean 1 mean 1 mean 1 mean Inj 2 mean 2 % mean 2 mean

Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 1 qt / 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5% 31.25 222.22 95 109.43 94.50 104.42 99.00 100.00 99.00 100.00 19.25 172.07 74 109.12 75.75 97.12Dual II Mag+ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 1 qt + 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%/ 17.50 124.44 94.75 109.14 95.50 105.52 99.00 100.00 99.00 100.00 8.75 78.21 74 109.12 81.75 104.81Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%

Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%/ 2.50 17.78 76.25 87.83 87.50 96.69 99.00 100.00 99.00 100.00 6.75 60.34 61 89.95 77 98.72Dual II Mag+ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 1 qt + 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%/Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%

Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X)/ 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%/ 5.00 35.56 81.25 93.59 84.50 93.37 99.00 100.00 99.00 100.00 10.00 89.39 62.25 91.80 77.5 99.36Dual II Mag+ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 1 qt + 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%/

Mean 14.06 86.81 90.50 99.00 99.00 11.19 67.81 78.00C.V. % 82.59 4.31 2.67 0.00 0.00 152.9

219.92 13.15

LSD (0.05) 17.89 5.77 3.72 0.00 0.00 26.36 20.82 15.80* Abbreviations: Inj., sugar beet injury; RRPW, redroot pigweed; GIFT, giant foxtail; EBN, eastern black nightshade; LTSW, ladysthumb smartweed.

Table 3 . Dual spring timing trial, 0031Tons Sugar LTM RST RSA

% Sugar % % RST % RSA %TREATMENT RATE Tons mean % mean LTM* mean LBS mean LBS mean

Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 1 qt / 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5% 20.59 98.89 15.90 100.04 1.17 100.04 294.50 100.00 6066.3 98.92Betamix+ Dual II Mag+ Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 1 qt + 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%/ 22.22 106.70 15.80 99.44 1.17 100.60 292.50 99.32 6498.3 105.97Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%

Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%/ 20.49 98.42 15.94 100.27 1.16 99.66 295.50 100.34 6059.5 98.81Dual II Mag+ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 1 qt + 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%/Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%

Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%/ 19.99 95.99 15.93 100.26 1.16 99.70 295.50 100.34 5905.8 96.30Dual II Mag+ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 1 qt + 8oz+1/8oz+1.3oz+1.5%/

Mean 20.82 15.89 1.17 294.50 6132.48C.V. % 6.47 1.62 2.18 1.92 7.42LSD (0.05) 2.08 0.40 0.04 8.69 701.17* Abbreviations: LTM, loss to molasses; RST, recoverable sugar per ton, RSA, recoverable sugar per acre.

ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF DUAL OR FRONTIER WEED CONTROL PROGRAMS.

OBJECTIVE:

Determine the most efficient use of Dual II Magnum or Frontier in regard to product rate when used in combination withthree Micro-rate applications.

Table 1. Specifications for theEconomic viability of Dual orFrontier trial.

Task Performed Date

PPI Dual 4/18Planting Date 4/19POST Trtmt # 1 5/9POST Trtmt # 2 5/16POST Trtmt # 3 5/23Evaluation Date 6/6Harvest Date 9/20

SUMMARY:

! The site was north of Belgrade on a sandy textured soil with little or no weed pressure.

! There was no significant yield difference in terms of RSA among the treatments.

! It is likely that the insignificance of yield response to herbicide treatments was due to the relative lack of weed pressure withplot.

! Sugar beet injury was generally greatest from the treatments involving Dual II Magnum applied PPI. (This is consistent withtests that suggest that spring Dual PPI has greatest injury potential).

! Three vs. two Micro-rate applications following Dual II Magnum PPI did not appear to increase sugarbeet injury.

! In fields with low weed pressure, the inability to achieve additional weed control from higher Dual II Magnum or Frontier raany increase in yield response due to the increase in occurrence of sugar beet injury. This is contrary to the results of trials wheavier weed pressure where the yield benefits of increased weed control outweigh the occurrence of increased injury from iDual or Frontier rates, (refer to the Influence of Spring Timing on Dual II Magnum Performance trial).

a Abbreviations for Tables 2 & 3:LTM, loss to molasses; RST, recoverable sugar per ton; RSA, recoverable sugar per acre; COLQ, common lambsquarters; INJ,


The experiment was a randomized complete blockdesign at Belgrade. Applications were made to the centerseven feet of 11-ft wide 35-ft experimental units with abicycle wheel-type sprayer delivering 8.5 gpa at 40 p.s.i.through 8001 flat fan nozzles. The list of planting date,treatment dates, evaluation date, and harvest date can be foundin table 1. Treatments included Dual II Magnum appliedeither PPI at 27, 32, or 37 oz/A followed by two or threeMicro-rate applications or applied lay-by at 27 or 32 oz/A inthe first of two or three Micro-rate applications. Frontier wasapplied lay-by at 25oz/A in the first of two or three Micro-rateapplications. Sugar beet yield data was obtained from handharvesting ten feet of row from each of the center two rows.The treatments, rates, sugar beet injury, weed control, yielddata, and analysis are presented in tables 2 and 3.

Click forMain Menu

64

two or

in the

other

tes limitsith

ncreased

injury

65

Table 2. Yield and quality data from sugar beet treated with the Micro-rate with and without Frontier or Dual II Magnum, Belgrade.Tons Sugar Sugar LTM RST RST RSA RSA

TREATMENT RATE Tons % mean % % mean LTMa % mean LBS % mean LBS % meanBetamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 25.453 107.64 17.62 100.28 1.03 99.62 331.67 100.47 8422 107.98Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 22.123 93.56 17.74 100.98 1.04 100.51 327.94 99.34 7223 92.60Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 27 oz./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 24.413 103.24 17.29 98.45 1.05 101.74 324.78 98.39 7963 102.09Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 32 oz./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 22.408 94.76 17.9 101.87 1.01 97.66 337.65 102.29 7567 97.01Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 37 oz./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 24.923 105.40 17.13 97.48 1.06 102.63 321.22 97.31 7992 102.46Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 27oz./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 19.358 81.87 17.61 100.27 1.03 99.62 331.62 100.46 6419 82.30Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 32 oz./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 24.945 105.49 17.71 100.81 1.02 98.82 333.69 101.09 8335 106.86Dual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 37oz./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 21.505 90.95 17.81 101.40 1.02 98.15 335.9 101.76 7230 92.69Dual II Mag+Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 27 oz.+8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO/ 25.668 108.55 17.54 99.83 1.04 100.00 330.02 99.97 8454 108.39Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Dual II Mag+Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 32oz.+8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO/ 23.578 99.71 17.76 101.07 1.02 98.56 334.67 101.38 7896 101.23Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 24.98 105.64 17.18 97.79 1.07 102.87 322.25 97.62 8044 103.13Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 24.398 103.18 17.53 99.78 1.04 99.83 329.85 99.92 8053 103.25Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Mean 23.646 17.57 1.04 330.1 7799.83C.V. % 18.25 2.66 3.03 3.01 18.35LSD (0.05) 6.19 0.67 0.05 14.26 2052.40

Table 3. Weed control, percent stand, sugar beet injury and economics of Micro-rate with and without Frontier or Dual, Belgrade.COLQ % STAND INJURY Relative Product

TREATMENT RATE COLQa % mean STAND % mean INJ. % mean Cost per AcreBetamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 96.5 99.81 98 100.66 0.25 10.34 $57.75/AcreBetamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 91.75 94.89 99 101.69 0.00 0.00 $38.50/AcreDual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 27 oz./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 98.5 101.87 97.25 99.89 1.75 72.41 $77.20/AcreDual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 32 oz./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 97.25 100.58 98 100.66 1.50 62.07 $80.80/AcreDual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 37 oz./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 99 102.39 97.25 99.89 2.50 103.45 $84.40/acreDual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 27oz./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 98 101.36 96.5 99.12 5.00 206.90 $57.95/AcreDual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 32 oz./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 97 100.32 96.75 99.38 2.75 113.79 $61.55/AcreDual II Mag PPI/ Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 37oz./ 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 96.75 100.06 94.5 97.07 6.25 258.62 $65.15/AcreDual II Mag+Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 27 oz.+8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO/ 95 98.25 98 100.66 0.75 31.03 $77.20/AcreBetamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Dual II Mag+Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 32oz.+8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO/ 98 101.36 97.5 100.15 1.75 72.41 $61.55/AcreBetamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 98 101.36 97.75 100.41 1.75 72.41 $73.00/AcreBetamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 94.5 97.74 97.75 100.41 4.75 196.55 $53.75/AcreBetamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Mean 96.6875 97.35 2.42C.V. % 3.73 1.50 116.22LSD (0.05) 5.18 2.09 4.03

ECONOMIC VIABILITY AND EFFICACY OF FRONTIER WEED CONTROL PROGRAMS.

OBJECTIVE:

Examine the influence of Frontier specifically with the Micro-rate and various modifications of the Micro-rate to determmost efficient and economical use of this product should it ever have applications to the SMBSC growing area.

Table 1. Specifications for theEconomic viability and Efficacy ofFrontier weed control programstrial.

Task Performed Date

Planting Date 5/3POST Trtmt # 1 5/22POST Trtmt # 2 5/30POST Trtmt # 3 6/6Evaluation Date 1 6/21Evaluation Date 2 7/7Harvest Date 9/15

SUMMARY:

! Weed control data when averaged across weed species indicated the standard Micro-rate minus Stinger gave equal weed constandard Micro-rate (Betamix + Upbeet + Stinger + MSO at 8oz + 1/8oz + 1.3oz + 1.5%). This is consistent with other weeddata from 2000 and will be investigated further in 2001.

! The standard Micro-rate and the Micro-rate less Stinger provided greater weed control and tended to provide greater RSA thaMicro-rate when either Betamix or Upbeet were left out.

! When Frontier was used in the first of three Micro-rate or Micro-rate variation applications, weed control when averaged acrspecies indicated the standard Micro-rate and the Micro-rate less Upbeet tended to give greater weed control and RSA than Fplus the Micro-rate when either Betamix or Stinger were left out.

! The previous summary points suggest that Frontier when used in combination with the Micro-rate may control the weeds thais currently controlling in the standard Micro-rate.

! Frontier + Betamix + Stinger + MSO at 25 oz + 8oz + 1.3oz + 1.5% in the first of three Micro-rate applications (each withoutended to provide weed control that produced the greatest RSA. This treatment was followed by Frontier in the first of three Micro-rates which was followed by three standard Micro-rate applications without Stinger.


The experiment was a randomized complete blockdesign near Renville. Applications were made to the centerfour rows of 6-row by 30 ft experimental units with a bicyclewheel-type sprayer delivering 8.5 gpa at 40 p.s.i. through8001 flat fan nozzles. All treatments included the standardMicro-rate or some variation of the Micro-rate less individualcomponents. Frontier was included in the first of threeapplications and compared to the Micro-rate or Micro-ratevariation. The list of planting date, treatment dates, evaluationdates, and harvest date can be found in table 1. The varietyplanted was Beta 5296. Sugar beet yield data was obtainedfrom hand harvesting ten feet of row from each of the centertwo rows. The treatments, rates, sugar beet injury, weedcontrol, yield data, and analysis are presented in tables 2and 3.

Click forMain Menu

66

ine the

trol to the control

n the

oss weedrontier

t Upbeet

t Upbeet),standard

67

Table 2. Influence of Frontier on the Micro-rate weed control program and quality data, RenvilleTons Sugar LTM RST RSA

% Sugar % % RST % RSA %TREATMENT RATE Tons mean % mean LTMa mean LBS mean LBS meanBetamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 19.163 97.76 15.06 98.76 1.24 101.44 276.3 98.53 2650.2 96.59


Frontier+B'mix+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 23.37 119.23 15.59 102.25 1.19 97.66 287.85 102.65 3380.2 123.20Betamix+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.5% MSO/ 17.153 87.51 15.23 99.88 1.23 100.28 280.01 99.85 2395.8 87.32Betamix+Upbeet+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 19.735 100.68 15.32 100.47 1.22 99.44 281.99 100.56 2797.8 101.97Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Betamix+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 18.438 94.06 15.05 98.73 1.24 101.26 276.25 98.51 2551.9 93.01

Betamix+Upbeet+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.5% MSO 21.125 107.77 15.10 99.03 1.23 100.81 277.28 98.88 2895.3 105.52Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 16.643 84.91 15.47 101.49 1.20 98.37 285.38 101.76 2363.1 86.13

Mean 19.60 15.24 1.22 280.43 2743.8C.V. % 33.29 3.15 3.31 3.72 32.1LSD (0.05) 9.52 0.70 0.06 15.21 1286.2a Abbreviations: LTM, loss to molasses; RST, recoverable sugar per ton; RSA, recoverable sugar per acre.

Table 3. Influence of Rontiner on the Micro-rate weed control program for injury, weed control and cost, RenvilleINJ RRPW1 GIFT1 RRPW2 GIFT2 Relative% RR % GI % RR % GI % Product

TREATMENT RATE INJa mean PW1 mean FT1 mean PW2 mean FT2 mean Cost / AcreBetamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 2.50 50.00 70.75 91.59 73.75 96.41 73.75 113.95 73.75 101.55 $57.75Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 6.25 125.00 93.50 121.04 94.75 123.86 73.25 113.18 85.75 118.07 $73.00Betamix+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSOFrontier+B'mix+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 12.50 250.00 84.75 109.71 94.25 123.20 73.50 113.57 84.00 115.66 $56.14Betamix+Stinger+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+B'mix+Upbeet+MSO/ 25 oz.+8 oz+1/8 oz+1.5% MSO/ 6.25 125.00 87.00 112.62 97.50 127.45 66.25 102.37 74.00 101.89 $57.88Betamix+Upbeet+MSO (2X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.5% MSO

Frontier+Upbeet+Stinger+MSO/ 25 oz.+1/8 oz+1.3 oz+1.5% MSO/ 2.50 50.00 88.25 114.24 74.25 97.06 68.50 105.84 67.00 92.25 $53.50Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (2X) 1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO

Betamix+Stinger+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 3.75 75.00 62.50 80.91 57.50 75.16 52.50 81.12 66.25 91.22 $40.89Betamix+Upbeet+MSO (3X) 8 oz.+1/8 oz.+1.5% MSO 2.50 50.00 71.25 92.23 81.25 106.21 63.75 98.50 77.75 107.06 $42.63Upbeet+Stinger+MSO (3X) 1/8 oz.+1.3 oz.+1.5% MSO 3.75 75.00 60.00 77.67 38.75 50.65 46.25 71.46 52.50 72.29 $38.25Mean 5.00 77.25 76.50 64.72 72.63C.V. % 190.39 19.94 9.45 32.81 23.38LSD (0.05) 13.89 22.48 10.55 30.99 24.78a Abbreviations: INJ, injury; RRPW, redroot pigweed; GIFT,giant foxtail.

NITROGEN FERTILITY, LIME, OR MANURE AND VIRAL DISEASES

OBJECTIVE:

Evaluate the influence of nitrogen rate, application of spent factory lime, or turkey manure on severity of RhizomSoil-Borne Mosaic virus infection and resulting sugar beet yield.


The experimental design was a randomized complete block with six replicates at three locations in the Southern MSugar Cooperative Growing area. In each case the proceeding crop was field corn. Experiments were set out in the fall ofExperimental units were 11 ft wide by 30 ft long. The lime was SMBSC factory spent lime that had an effective neutralizapproximately 75% and was hand applied to entire experimental units at a 4 ton per acre equivalent. Manure was Turkey an analysis of 60-40-40 (N-P-K) per ton. Manure was also hand applied to entire experimental units at a 5 ton per acre eqUniversity of Minnesota guidelines for losses to non-incorporated manure were used to estimate available nitrogen and caavailable crop N. Applied Nitrogen was in the form of Urea (46-0-0) and was applied prior to spring tillage. The sugar beBeta 5014 at DeGraff and Maynard, and Beta 5296 at Bird Island. The specifications including application dates, plantinglevels average pH, and harvest date for each location can be found in table 1. Treatments, total available nitrogen, and yiecan be found in tables 2 through 5.

Table 1. Specifications for the N-Fertility, Lime, or Manure and Viral Diseases trial

M a n u r e / N i t r o g e n T o t a l A v g .E x p . L im e A p p l i c F e r t i l i t y P l a n t R e s id p lo t H a r v e s t

# L o c a t io n D a t e D a t e D a t e N i t . p H D a t e

0 0 4 6 D e G r a f f 1 1 / 4 4 / 7 4 / 2 7 1 7 2 7 . 9 5 9 / 3 00 0 4 7 M a y n a r d 1 1 / 4 4 / 7 4 / 2 6 1 3 3 7 . 6 8 1 0 / 20 0 4 8 B i r d I s la n d * 1 1 / 4 4 / 7 5 / 3 1 8 1 7 . 3 7 1 0 / 3

* The Bird Island site was replanted.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:The respective sites differed in level of disease pressure. The DeGraff site had Rhizomania and Beet Soil-Borne

a severe to moderate degree and had high nitrogen fertility. The Maynard site had slight to moderate Rhizomania pressuremoderate nitrogen fertility but very high phosphorus and potassium fertility. The Bird Island site had moderate Rhizomanthe lowest nitrogen fertility of the three sites. All three sites had neutral to slightly alkaline pH.

SUMMARY:

! At the DeGraff site with the highest degree of disease pressure, the manure, lime, or 40# N treatments provided signifRSA than the higher nitrogen rates (Table 2).

! At Maynard with high fertility and relatively low disease pressure, there were no statistical difference between treatmno apparent trend for improvement from manure or lime (Table 3).

! At Bird Island, replants and wind left a thin beet stand and disease pressure was moderate. Results appeared random trend. RSA treatment results were statistically insignificant (Table 4).

! Combining the data provided indication that manure or lime and/or low N treatments provided greater RSA than highapplications (Table 5). The combined results however, were heavily influenced by the data from the DeGraff site whdiseases existed. One year of data appears to indicate that nitrogen fertilization will not overcome viral diseases and mreduce RSA at an increased cost to the producer. Further long-term testing of manure and lime is planned.

Click forMain Menu

68

ania or Beet

innesota Beet 1999.ing index ofpack litter withuivalent. Thelculate totalet variety was dates, nitrogenld information

Mosaic virus to and hadia pressure and

icantly greater

ents to RSA and

with no real

nitrogenere both viral

ay in fact

69

Table 2. Sugar beet yield and quality in the presence of Rhizomania and Beet Soil-borne Mosaic Virus asinfluenced by manure, lime, and nitrogen rates, Exp. 0046. DeGraff, MN location

Residual plus Tons Sugar Sugar LTM RST RST RSA RSATREATMENT Applied Nitrogen Tons % mean % % mean LTM* % mean LBS % mean LBS % mean

Check 172 16.20 105.59 15.67 112.35 1.18 90.46 290.00 114.67 4681.70 106.76Manure 247 17.81 116.09 15.62 111.99 1.19 91.22 288.67 114.14 5138.20 117.17Lime 172 17.83 116.22 15.36 110.13 1.21 92.76 283.17 111.97 5045.50 115.0540 Lbs. Nitrogen 212 18.12 118.11 15.34 109.95 1.21 92.76 282.50 111.70 5170.70 117.9180 Lbs. Nitrogen 252 13.70 89.30 15.68 112.42 1.19 91.22 289.67 114.54 3976.20 90.67120 Lbs. Nitrogen 292 12.12 79.00 14.46 103.67 1.27 97.36 263.67 104.26 3223.70 73.51160 Lbs. Nitrogen 332 11.62 75.71 16.00 114.72 1.16 88.92 296.67 117.30 3462.00 78.94Mean 15.34 13.95 1.30 252.91 4385.43C.V. % 20.98 5.53 5.65 6.47 23.50LSD (0.05) 3.77 1.00 0.08 21.61 1207.90* Abbreviations: LTM, loss to molasses; RST, recoverable sugar per ton, RSA, recoverable sugar per acre.

Table 3. Sugar beet yield and quality in the presence of Rhizomania as influenced by manure, lime andnitrogen rates, Exp. 0047. Maynard, MN location

Applied plusResidual Nitrogen Tons Sugar Sugar LTM RST RST RSA RSA

TREATMENT based on fall test Tons % mean % % mean LTM* % mean LBS % mean LBS % meanCheck 133 23.32 103.86 15.71 112.64 1.18 90.46 290.83 114.99 6775.50 106.17Manure 208 21.74 96.81 15.32 109.84 1.22 93.52 282.00 111.50 6062.00 94.99Lime 133 22.21 98.90 15.73 112.78 1.18 90.46 290.83 114.99 6472.70 101.4340 Lbs. Nitrogen 173 21.22 94.51 15.18 108.84 1.22 93.52 279.00 110.32 5900.80 92.4780 Lbs. Nitrogen 213 22.22 98.95 15.78 113.14 1.17 89.69 292.00 115.46 6483.50 101.60120 Lbs. Nitrogen 253 22.80 101.56 15.14 108.55 1.23 94.29 278.33 110.05 6330.50 99.20160 Lbs. Nitrogen 293 23.67 105.41 15.30 109.70 1.21 92.76 281.67 111.37 6646.30 104.15200 Lbs. Nitrogen 333 21.24 94.61 15.10 108.26 1.23 94.29 277.67 109.79 5901.20 92.47Mean 22.45 13.95 1.30 252.91 6381.61C.V. % 19.95 5.96 6.11 6.99 19.87LSD (0.05) 5.19 1.07 0.08 23.16 1465.90* Abbreviations: LTM, loss to molasses; RST, recoverable sugar per ton, RSA, recoverable sugar per acre.

70

Table 4. Sugar beet yield and quality in the presence of Rhizomania as influenced by manure, lime and nitrogenrates, Exp. 0048. Bird Island, MN location

Applied plusResidual Nitrogen Tons Sugar Sugar LTM RST RST RSA RSA

TREATMENT based on fall test Tons % mean % % mean LTM* % mean LBS % mean LBS % meanCheck 81 12.75 94.76 15.05 107.90 1.37 105.02 273.50 108.14 3491.00 91.73Manure 156 13.51 100.40 15.39 110.34 1.33 101.95 281.83 111.44 3805.00 99.98Lime 81 13.54 100.63 15.61 111.92 1.32 101.19 285.50 112.89 3872.20 101.7540 Lbs. Nitrogen 121 13.77 102.34 15.28 109.55 1.31 100.42 279.33 110.45 3842.00 100.9680 Lbs. Nitrogen 161 13.61 101.15 15.70 112.56 1.33 101.95 287.50 113.68 3918.70 102.97120 Lbs. Nitrogen 201 12.57 93.42 15.38 110.27 1.36 104.25 287.67 113.75 3741.00 98.30160 Lbs. Nitrogen 241 14.44 107.32 15.01 107.62 1.30 99.66 274.29 108.45 3969.49 104.31Mean 13.46 13.95 1.30 252.91 3805.63C.V. % 8.73 7.27 4.44 7.45 12.54LSD (0.05) 1.38 1.32 0.07 24.66 562.66* Abbreviations: LTM, loss to molasses; RST, recoverable sugar per ton, RSA, recoverable sugar per acre.

Table 5. Combined Sugar beet yield and quality in the presence of Rhizomania as influenced by manure, limeand nitrogen rates, Exp. 0046, 0047, 0048.

Average applied +Residual N across Tons Sugar Sugar LTM RST RST RSA RSA

TREATMENT sites based on fall test Tons % mean % % mean LTM* % mean LBS % mean LBS % meanCheck 129 17.42 101.97 15.48 100.44 1.24 99.31 284.80 100.56 4961.22 102.48Manure 204 17.69 103.55 15.44 100.18 1.25 100.11 283.80 100.21 5020.42 103.71Lime 129 17.86 104.54 15.56 100.95 1.24 99.31 286.40 101.13 5115.10 105.6640 Lbs. Nitrogen 169 17.70 103.60 15.27 99.07 1.25 100.11 280.40 99.01 4963.08 102.5280 Lbs. Nitrogen 209 16.51 96.64 15.72 101.99 1.23 98.51 289.80 102.33 4784.60 98.83120 Lbs. Nitrogen 249 15.83 92.66 14.99 97.26 1.29 103.32 274.00 96.75 4337.42 89.60160 Lbs. Nitrogen 289 16.58 97.05 15.43 100.11 1.24 99.31 283.80 100.21 4705.40 97.20Mean 17.08 15.41 1.25 283.20 4841.03* Abbreviations: LTM, loss to molasses; RST, recoverable sugar per ton, RSA, recoverable sugar per acre.

NITROGEN FERTILITY ON SANDY SOILS OF THE NORTHERN SMBSC GROWING AREA

OBJECTIVE:

Determine best management strategies for nitrogen fertilization on the sandy irrigated soils of the northern SMBSC g


The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replicates. The experiment was conducted at twin 2000 and one location in 1999. The nitrogen source was ammonium nitrate fertilizer and was spread by hand to the entire eunit area in all cases. Fertilizer applications were made to 11 ft wide by 35 ft long experimental units. Preplant fertilization wperformed on April 13 at Belgrade and April 15 at the Hancock site in 2000 and on April 28 at Hancock in 1999. The side-drapplications were made at the determined rates and times (see yield tables). In 2000 the Belgrade site was planted on April 25Hancock site on April 28. The Hancock site in 1999 was planted on April 28. The varieties were ACH 309 at Belgrade and Hancock in 2000 and Vanderhave 46109 at Hancock in 1999. Yield data was collected from each of the experiments in 1999Yield was determined by harvesting ten feet of row from each of the center two of six-row experimental units and converted tA list of fertilizer application dates, rates and yield data can be found in tables one through three.

SUMMARY:

! At Belgrade, the 120 pound total nitrogen program (TNP) made up of three applications of 40 pounds, and the 200 poundprovided equal sugar beet tons/acre and RSA and each were significantly greater than all other treatments.

! At the Hancock site, the 40 pound TNP, the 120 pound TNP made up of three 40 pound applications, and the 80 pounds Tequal RSA and were greater than all other nitrogen fertilization programs.

! At the Hancock site, the 120 pound TNP from three 40 lbs. applications provided greater tons/acre than all other treatmen

! The same experiment conducted at Hancock in 1999 indicated that the 120 pound TNP made up of three 40 pound applic120 pound TNP from 40 pounds N preplant and 80 pounds on June 1, the 160 pound TNP from four 40 pound applicationpound TNP program provided equal RSA and were greater than all other treatments.

! When 1999 and 2000 data were combined the 120 pound TNP from three 40 pound applications applied pre-plant, June 1tended strongly to provide the greatest RSA versus the other nitrogen management programs. In addition, this same treatconsistently among the top programs at each site and in each year.

Click forMain Menu

71

rowing area.

o locationsxperimentalas

ess, and the

HM 7057 at and 2000.o tons/acre.

TNP

NP provided

ts.

ations, thes, and the 40

, and July1ment was

72

Table 1. Fertilization on sand strategies, Belgrade - 2000N application timing Tons/ Sugar LTM RST RSA

Total Pre- Tons/ Acre Sugar % % % %Nitrogen plant 6/1 7/1 8/1 Acre % mean % mean LTMa mean RST mean RSA mean

40 40 20.92 85.32 17.35 101.82 1.056 98.17 325.89 102.07 6819.9 87.2880 40 40 25.95 105.85 17.05 100.06 1.074 99.87 319.50 100.07 8296.1 106.17120 40 80 24.48 99.85 17.00 99.76 1.076 100.10 318.43 99.73 7777.6 99.54160 40 120 24.91 101.59 16.96 99.56 1.083 100.70 317.62 99.48 7927.3 101.45200 40 160 26.62 108.59 16.91 99.24 1.083 100.74 316.54 99.14 8409.7 107.63120 40 40 40 30.14 122.90 16.85 98.89 1.088 101.17 315.25 98.73 9490.8 121.46160 40 40 40 40 25.30 103.17 16.81 98.63 1.097 102.01 314.17 98.40 7930.3 101.49160 40 80 40 25.22 102.87 17.11 100.39 1.068 99.30 320.77 100.46 8095.3 103.600 0 0 0 0 17.13 69.87 17.32 101.65 1.053 97.92 325.45 101.93 5576.2 71.36

Mean 24.52 17.04 1.075 319.29 7813.69C.V. % 14.94 4.54 5.39 5.21 15.08LSD(0.05)

3.66 0.77 0.058 16.64 1178.20

a Abbreviations: LTM, loss to molasses; RST, recoverable sugar per ton; RSA, recoverable sugar per acre.

Table 2. Fertilization on sand strategies, Hancock - 2000N application timing Tons/ Sugar LTM RST RSA


40 40 27.70 107.59 17.37 104.05 1.069 96.78 325.96 104.56 9026.7 112.5080 40 40 26.26 102.01 17.14 102.68 1.066 96.44 321.46 103.12 8430.1 105.06120 40 80 24.28 94.31 16.94 101.46 1.091 98.73 316.91 101.66 7705.1 96.03160 40 120 23.99 93.21 16.72 100.16 1.104 99.87 312.31 100.18 7499.4 93.47200 40 160 25.29 98.25 16.18 96.92 1.144 103.49 300.68 96.45 7603.3 94.76120 40 40 40 29.29 113.80 16.51 98.90 1.113 100.70 307.92 98.78 9017.4 112.38160 40 40 40 40 26.23 101.88 16.10 96.44 1.149 103.94 298.98 95.91 7835.2 97.65160 40 80 40 25.69 99.80 16.21 97.10 1.141 103.22 301.34 96.66 7742.8 96.500 0 0 0 0 22.94 89.13 17.07 102.29 1.070 96.84 320.08 102.67 7353.6 91.65

Mean 25.74 16.69 1.105 311.74 8023.73C.V. % 5.41 4.80 5.32 5.50 7.56LSD(0.05)

1.39 0.80 0.06 17.15 606.88


Table 3. Fertilization on sand strategies 1999 and 2000 combined.N application timing Tons/ Sugar LTM RST RSA


40 40 26.86 104.33 17.33 103.80 1.010 91.44 326.23 104.65 8761.2 100.4680 40 40 28.28 109.87 16.91 101.30 1.014 91.72 318.00 102.01 8964.8 102.80120 40 80 27.23 105.79 16.96 101.60 1.012 91.58 318.95 102.31 8693.4 99.68160 40 120 26.40 102.57 16.66 99.83 1.064 96.30 311.92 100.06 8231.8 94.39200 40 160 28.44 110.48 16.49 98.80 1.059 95.87 308.59 98.99 8766.0 100.52120 40 40 40 31.33 121.71 16.72 100.19 1.054 95.36 313.38 100.53 9824.0 112.65160 40 40 40 40 28.68 111.41 16.48 98.76 1.062 96.12 308.47 98.95 8845.3 101.43160 40 80 40 27.84 108.17 16.48 98.76 1.058 95.76 308.47 98.95 8575.7 98.330 0 0 0 0 24.00 93.23 17.28 103.53 0.995 90.00 325.76 104.50 7826.1 89.74

Mean 27.67 16.81 1.036 315.53 8720.92C.V. % 10.16 4.06 6.49 4.65 10.52LSD(0.05)

3.58 0.44 0.05 9.40 1225.20


PHOSPHORUS PLACEMENT AND FOLIAR MICRO-NUTRIENTS WITH SUGAR BEET

OBJECTIVE:

Determine the influence if any, of phosphorus placement, phosphorus rate, foliarly applied micro-nutrients, or foliaamino acids on sugar beet growth and yield.


The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replicates. Yield data was collected from eaclocations planted in 2000. Soil applied fertilizer treatments were applied to 11 ft wide by 35 ft long experimental units. Thetreatments were applied with a bicycle wheel-type sprayer delivering 17.0 gpa at 40 p.s.i. through 8002 flat fan nozzles to throws of 6-row plots. Phosphorus treatments at Bird Island consisted of 20, 40, 60, or 80 pounds P2O5 in the form of 0-44-0 band or applied broadcast. P treatments at Raymond included the 20, 40, 60, and 80 pound P2O5 band treatments but only thbroadcast treatment. Both locations included a commercial micro-nutrient plan called the Ele-max program and its individua commercial amino acid program called Auxi-gro and a check in addition to the phosphorus placement treatments.

The varieties were Vanderhave H46109 at Raymond and HM Resist at Bird Island. A list of fertilizer application dates, plaharvest dates for each location can be found in table 1. The yield data for each site can be found in tables two and three.

Table 1. Specifications for the phosphorus placement and foliar micro-nutrients with sugar beexperiment.

O ls e n B 'c a s t / A u x i - g r oE x p . P - S o i l b a n d P P l a n t a p p l i c H a r v

# L o c a t io n T e s t a p p l i c s D a t e 1 2 3 d a t e D a t e

0 0 0 7 B i r d I s la n d 4 4 / 1 0 4 / 1 2 6 / 9 6 / 2 2 7 / 6 8 / 1 5 1 0 / 60 0 0 8 R a y m o n d 1 6 4 / 2 0 4 / 2 6 6 / 2 2 7 / 6 7 / 1 9 8 / 1 5 1 0 / 9

E l e m a xa p p l i c a t i o n s

SUMMARY:

! No treatments at either site produced RSA that was significantly greater than the check. However, there were treatmensignificantly lower than the check.

! At the Raymond site 80 pounds of P2O5 provided greater RSA than 40 pounds when each were applied broadcast.

! At Raymond the 40 and 60 pound band applications and the 80 pound broadcast application of P2O5 tended to produce RSA and were significantly greater than the micro-nutrient or amino acid foliar feed programs but were not significantlthe check.

! At the Bird Island location there was generally no significant difference among treatments.

! At Bird Island the treatments that provided the greatest RSA were the 80 pound broadcast and the 40 pound band applicrespectively. However, neither treatment was significantly greater than the check. This was somewhat consistent with the Raymond site (see bullet item number 3).

Click forMain Menu

73

rly applied

h of two foliare center fourknifed in as ae 40 poundal constituents,

nting dates and

et

ts that were

the greatesty greater than

ations of P2O5,the data from

74

Table 2. Influence of phosphorus placement and foliar applied micronutrients on sugar beet - Bird Island

Tons/ Tons Sugar Sugar LTM RST RSAAbbrv. Treatment Description Rate Acre % mean % % mean LTM % mean RST %

meanRSA %

mean

ELE-MAX ELE-MAX Program 27.42 104.12 16.45 95.61 1.12 104.98 307 94.92 8410 99.09a) Manganese FL + Super Zinc FL - (4-6 leaf beet stage) 1 + 1 pt/Acreb) Maganese FL + Coron Boron - (12-14 days after 4-6 leafbeet stage)

1 pt + 2 qt/Acre

c) Phocal - Zn Fl - (24-28 days after 4-6 leaf beet stage) 2 qt/AcreMn Manganese FL - (4-6 leaf beet stage) 1 pt/Acre 26.80 101.77 16.84 97.87 1.09 102.86 315 97.55 8429 99.32Zn Super Zinc FL - (4-6 leaf beet stage) 1 pt/Acre 25.46 96.68 16.97 98.64 1.08 101.68 318 98.40 8115 95.62CB Coron Boron - (12-14 days after 4-6 leaf beet stage) 2 qt/Acre 27.62 104.87 17.17 99.78 1.07 100.27 322 99.72 8909 104.97PZn Phocal - Zn Fl - (24-28 days after 4-6 leaf beet stage) 2 qt/Acre 26.94 102.31 17.24 100.22 1.06 99.33 324 100.26 8717 102.71Mn-Zn Manganese FL + Super Zinc FL - (4-6 leaf beet stage) 1+ 1 pt/Acre 21.93 83.27 17.10 99.38 1.07 100.74 321 99.26 7035 82.89Mn-CB Maganese FL + Coron Boron - (12-14 days after 4-6 leaf beet stage) 1 pt + 2 qt/Acre 25.76 97.83 17.32 100.66 1.05 98.86 326 100.80 8392 98.88Auxien Auxi-gro 26.30 99.88 17.18 99.83 1.06 100.03 322 99.80 8507 100.24B-20 Banded 20 lbs. P 20 lbs./Acre 27.14 103.05 17.41 101.17 1.05 98.39 328 101.42 8873 104.55B-40 Banded 40 lbs. P 40 lbs./Acre 27.04 102.66 17.57 102.14 1.04 97.68 331 102.43 8934 105.27B-60 Banded 60 lbs. P 60 lbs./Acre 26.43 100.36 17.67 102.71 1.03 96.74 333 103.13 8798 103.67B-80 Banded 80 lbs. P 80 lbs./Acre 27.21 103.32 16.56 96.27 1.11 104.27 309 95.77 8407 99.06K-40 Broadcast 40 lbs. P 40 lbs./Acre 27.00 102.51 17.35 100.83 1.06 99.33 326 100.96 8472 99.83K-60 Broadcast 60 lbs. P 60 lbs./Acre 25.89 98.31 17.22 100.08 1.06 99.80 323 100.11 8374 98.67K-80 Broadcast 80 lbs. P 80 lbs./Acre 27.16 103.14 17.64 102.53 1.03 97.21 333 102.97 9016 106.23CK-1 Check 25.15 95.52 17.68 102.75 1.03 97.21 333 102.97 8398 98.95CK-2 Check 25.61 97.23 17.66 102.62 1.03 96.97 333 103.05 8495 100.10(P) Mn+Zn Phosyn 26.62 101.08 16.70 97.04 1.10 103.56 312 96.55 8293 97.71(P) Mn Phosyn 25.75 97.78 17.35 100.83 1.05 98.86 326 101.04 8405 99.03(P) Zn Phosyn 27.45 104.24 16.90 98.23 1.09 102.15 317 98.02 8672 102.18(P) Mn-Zn Phosyn 26.35 100.06 17.35 100.83 1.05 99.09 326 100.88 8577 101.06

Mean 26.33 17.20 1.06 322.90 8486.93C.V. % 8.33 3.94 4.62 4 10LSD (0.05) 3.09 0.96 0.07 20 1185

75

Table 3. Influence of phosphorous placement and foliar applied micronutrients on sugar beet yield - Raymond

Tons/ Tons Sugar Sugar LTM RST RSATreatment Description Rate Acre % mean % % mean LTM % mean RST % mean RSA % mean

ELE-MAX Program 24.43 95.20 16.82 100.26 1.088 99.56 315 100.26 7676 95.42a) Manganese FL + Super Zinc FL - (4-6 leaf beet stage) 1 + 1 pt/Acreb) Maganese FL + Coron Boron - (12-14 days after 4-6 leaf beet stage) 1 pt + 2 qt/Acrec) Phoscal - Zn Fl - (24-28 days after 4-6 leaf beet stage) 2 qt/AcreManganese FL - (4-6 leaf beet stage) 1 pt/Acre 24.85 96.82 16.90 100.75 1.083 99.10 317 100.90 7842 97.48Super Zinc FL - (4-6 leaf beet stage) 1 pt/Acre 22.99 89.58 17.08 101.82 1.068 97.73 320 102.09 7365 91.56Phoscal - Zn Fl - (24-28 days after 4-6 leaf beet stage) 2 qt/Acre 23.59 91.94 16.50 98.32 1.118 102.31 308 98.03 7287 90.59Manganese FL + Super Zinc FL - (4-6 leaf beet stage) 1 + 1 pt/Acre 26.50 103.26 16.85 100.42 1.088 99.56 315 100.50 8350 103.80Maganese FL + Coron Boron - (12-14 days after 4-6 leaf beet stage) 1 pt + 2 qt/Acre 23.28 90.70 16.96 101.08 1.078 98.64 318 101.29 7408 92.09Auxi-gro 24.31 94.73 16.36 97.49 1.125 102.99 305 97.15 7406 92.07Phosphorous applied in Band 3 -5 inch deep 20 lbs./Acre 26.19 102.07 16.88 100.60 1.085 99.33 316 100.74 8273 102.85Phosphorous applied in Band 3 -5 inch deep 40 lbs./Acre 29.06 113.25 17.06 101.69 1.075 98.42 320 101.85 9240 114.86Phosphorous applied in Band 3 -5 inch deep 60 lbs./Acre 28.24 110.04 16.73 99.74 1.090 99.79 313 99.70 8829 109.7680 lb. Phosphorous applied in Band 3 -5 inch deep 80 lbs./Acre 27.96 108.95 16.75 99.83 1.095 100.25 313 99.86 8754 108.83Phosphorous applied Broadcast 40 lbs./Acre 25.43 99.08 16.39 97.71 1.125 102.99 305 97.31 7714 95.90

Check 26.79 104.39 16.83 100.29 1.085 99.33 315 100.34 8430 104.79

Mean 25.66 16.78 1.09 314 8044C.V. % 9.52 3.48 4.13 4.00 9.03LSD (0.05) 3.49 0.83 0.06 18 1038

VARIETY RESPONSES TO CERCOSPORA LEAFSPOT FUNGICIDES

OBJECTIVE:

Observe the influence of several cercospora leafspot (CLS) fungicide programs on the yield and quality performsugar beet varieties.


The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replicates. The location, planting date, fungdates, evaluation date and harvest date can be found in table 1. The fungicide programs were the fungicide-free check, BArates, and an Eminent - Supertin alternation at each location. Varieties tested at each site were Hilleshog varieties E17, SuAgate. At the Renville site Vanderhave H66240 and Beta 3712 were tested in addition to the above varieties. The means coded variety trial CLS nursery KWS evaluation data for each variety were:

Beta 3712 - 5.16 HME17 -4.10 HM-Agate - 5.82 VDH 66240 - 5.46 HM-Supreme - 4.24

Fungicide treatments, rates, and varieties in addition to the KWS leafspot evaluations and yield data can be found in tablesFungicide applications were made to the center four rows of six row by 30 ft experimental units with a tractor mounted fuThe center two rows were harvested with a two-row small plot lifter. Harvested sugar beets from each experimental unit wsampled and tested for quality parameters.

Table 1. Specifications for the Variety Responses to CLS Fungicides experiment.K W S

P l a n t E v a lu a t io n H a r v e s tL o c a t io n D a t e 1 2 3 4 D a t e D a t e

G lu e k 4 / 2 8 7 / 1 2 7 / 2 7 8 / 1 0 8 / 2 4 9 / 1 3 1 0 / 9R e n v i l l e 5 / 3 7 / 1 2 7 / 2 7 8 / 1 0 8 / 2 4 9 / 1 3 1 0 / 1 1

F u n g i c i d eT r e a t m e n t D a t e s


Data were not combined since there was not enough seed available to plant all varieties at each site. In addition, cercospoindicated by the average of common varieties was higher at the Renville location (4.06) than at the Gluek site (3.65).

SUMMARY:

! When data were averaged over varieties at either location the BAS-500 and Eminent/Supertin alternation programs diRSA.

! At Gluek where two of three varieties were relatively tolerant to CLS, there was no difference in KWS readings betwEminent/Supertin alternation when data were averaged over varieties. However, at Renville where only two of five vrelative tolerance to CLS, the Eminent/ Supertin alternation provided a significantly lower (better) KWS reading thanprogram.

! At Renville, when data were averaged over fungicide programs, Beta 3712 provided greater RSA than HM Agate, HM66240 and tended to be greater than HM Supreme. VDH H66240 and HM E17 were equal and provided significantlyall other varieties tested.

! When data were averaged over fungicide programs at either location, HM E17 had a lower KWS rating than HM AgaVDH 66240 and tended to be greater than HM Supreme. However, the strong KWS rating of E17 did not correlate towhen CLS was controlled.

! Data from these trials indicate that when fungicides are effective for control of CLS, genetic potential can overcome Cyield. However, too much use of susceptible types may increase occurrence of fungicide tolerance. Thus, one can erchoosing a variety that has either extremely high or low KWS leafspot ratings when considering leafspot tolerance for

Click forMain Menu

76

ance of various

icide treatmentS-500 at twopreme, andfrom the 1999

2 and 3.ngicide sprayer.

ere sub-

ra pressure as

d not differ in

een BAS-500 orarieties had the BAS-500

E17, and VDH lower RSA than

te, Beta 3712, or a yield benefit

LS tolerance forror from highest RSA.

77

Table 1. KWS ratings and yield and quality data from fungicide by variety screen, Gluek.KWS- CLS KWS-CLS Tons Sugar Sugar LTM RST RST RSA RSA

TREATMENT RATE VARIETY Ratinga % mean Tons % mean % % mean LTM % mean LBS % mean LBS % meanFungicide-free check Hilleshog E17 4.83 132.32 18.07 76.26 15.55 91.45 1.114 104.31 288.67 90.57 5241.7 68.86Fungicide-free check Hilleshog Supreme 6.17 168.82 17.31 73.04 15.61 91.79 1.099 102.92 290.17 91.04 4980.7 65.43Fungicide-free check Hilleshog Agate 5.83 159.69 17.15 72.37 15.14 89.04 1.147 107.42 279.83 87.80 4800.8 63.07BAS 500 12.25 oz. Hilleshog E17 2.17 59.32 25.82 108.96 17.37 102.16 1.053 98.61 326.5 102.44 8418.8 110.60BAS 500 12.25 oz. Hilleshog Supreme 3.67 100.38 26.73 112.79 17.42 102.46 1.060 99.30 327.17 102.65 8763 115.12BAS 500 12.25 oz. Hilleshog Agate 3.50 95.82 24.99 105.47 17.09 100.53 1.074 100.63 320.33 100.50 7999.8 105.09BAS 500 24.5 oz. Hilleshog E17 2.50 68.44 24.59 103.78 17.9 105.29 1.022 95.69 337.5 105.89 8301.8 109.06BAS 500 24.5 oz. Hilleshog Supreme 3.17 86.69 26.6 112.24 17.37 102.14 1.051 98.49 326.5 102.44 8656.7 113.72BAS 500 24.5 oz. Hilleshog Agate 3.17 86.69 25.97 109.61 17.5 102.92 1.052 98.55 328.83 103.17 8536.8 112.15Eminent/Supertinb 13 / 5 oz. Hilleshog E17 2.50 68.44 26.21 110.60 17.63 103.71 1.033 96.79 332.17 104.22 8698.3 114.27Eminent/Supertin 13 / 5 oz. Hilleshog Supreme 3.17 86.69 25.9 109.30 17.92 105.38 1.058 99.08 337.17 105.79 8721 114.57Eminent/Supertin 13 / 5 oz. Hilleshog Agate 3.17 86.69 25.02 105.57 17.54 103.13 1.048 98.21 329.83 103.49 8225.8 108.06Mean 3.65 23.7 17 1.067 318.72 7612.1C.V. % 18.37 8.84 6.07 6.15 6.85 10.00LSD (0.05) 0.7764 2.42 1.19 0.076 25.27 965.96

Table 2. KWS ratings and yield and quality data from fungicide by variety screen, Renville.KWS- CLS KWS-CLS Tons Sugar Sugar LTM RST RST RSA RSA

TREATMENT RATE VARIETY Ratinga % mean Tons % mean % % mean LTM % mean LBS % mean LBS % meanFungicide-free check Hilleshog E17 4.50 106.51 15.47 106.21 16.56 100.99 1.111 98.38 308.99 101.18 4863 109.40Fungicide-free check Hilleshog Supreme 6.50 153.85 15.74 108.03 16.23 98.99 1.135 100.50 301.96 98.88 3459.5 77.82Fungicide-free check VDH 66240 6.50 153.85 11.49 78.87 16.99 103.62 1.081 95.79 318.23 104.20 3901.3 87.76Fungicide-free check Beta 3712 6.25 147.93 13.72 94.20 15.64 95.39 1.189 105.33 289.07 94.66 4480.5 100.79Fungicide-free check Hilleshog Agate 6.50 153.85 12.34 84.70 16.5 100.62 1.121 99.26 307.59 100.72 4204.5 94.58BAS 500 12.25 oz. Hilleshog E17 2.50 59.17 17.96 123.24 14.59 88.96 1.248 110.58 266.79 87.36 3586.3 80.68BAS 500 12.25 oz. Hilleshog Supreme 3.50 82.84 17.32 118.85 15.74 95.95 1.183 104.82 291.04 95.30 5058 113.78BAS 500 12.25 oz. VDH 66240 4.25 100.59 13.28 91.17 15.88 96.85 1.170 103.65 294.25 96.35 3633.3 81.73BAS 500 12.25 oz. Beta 3712 4.25 100.59 14.71 100.94 16.93 103.24 1.083 95.92 316.95 103.78 5688 127.95BAS 500 12.25 oz. Hilleshog Agate 4.50 106.51 12.35 84.76 17.08 104.13 1.071 94.90 320.08 104.81 4696 105.64BAS 500 24.5 oz. Hilleshog E17 2.25 53.25 16.76 115.01 15.59 95.09 1.192 105.55 288.02 94.31 4794 107.84BAS 500 24.5 oz. Hilleshog Supreme 2.75 65.09 16.66 114.34 15.68 95.63 1.185 104.93 289.96 94.95 4825.5 108.55BAS 500 24.5 oz. VDH 66240 3.25 76.92 12.52 85.90 16.82 102.57 1.100 97.47 314.4 102.95 3925.8 88.31BAS 500 24.5 oz. Beta 3712 3.00 71.01 13.81 94.79 16.08 98.07 1.154 102.25 298.57 97.77 4727.3 106.34BAS 500 24.5 oz. Hilleshog Agate 3.50 82.84 15.75 108.13 17.03 103.82 1.099 97.31 318.53 104.30 4423 99.50Eminent/Supertinb 13 / 5 oz. Hilleshog E17 3.50 82.84 14.46 99.25 15.85 96.66 1.171 103.69 293.59 96.14 4250 95.61Eminent/Supertin 13 / 5 oz. Hilleshog Supreme 4.25 100.59 15.32 105.12 17.69 107.86 1.027 90.98 333.19 109.10 4668.8 105.03Eminent/Supertin 13 / 5 oz. VDH 66240 4.00 94.67 14.05 96.43 16.3 99.38 1.135 100.50 303.26 99.30 3676.3 82.70Eminent/Supertin 13 / 5 oz. Beta 3712 4.25 100.59 15.62 107.18 17.85 108.84 1.043 92.40 336.09 110.05 5204.8 117.08Eminent/Supertin 13 / 5 oz. Hilleshog Agate 4.50 106.51 12.08 82.88 16.95 103.33 1.081 95.79 317.28 103.89 4840.5 108.89Mean 4.23 14.57 16.4 1.129 305.39 4445.32C.V. % 20.95 10.61 6.81 7.46 7.86 12.86LSD (0.05) 1.25 2.19 1.58 0.119 33.99 809.47a Abbreviations for Tables 1 & 2: KWS-CLS, 2000 cercospora leafspot field rating where 1 = disease free and 9 = complete defoliation; LTM, loss to molasses; RST,recoverable sugar per ton; RSA, recoverable sugar per acre.b The Eminent / Supertin treatment was an alternation of two Eminent application with two Supertin applications beginning with Eminent.

NITRATE SOIL TEST ADJUSTMENT FOR SUGAR BEET GROWN IN HUMID AREAS OF MINNESOTA

John A. Lamb, George W. Rehm, Mark W. Bredehoeft, Steve R. Roehl, and John A. FischerDepartment of Soil, Water, and Climate

University of MinnesotaSt. Paul, Minnesota

andSouthern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative

Renville, Minnesota

Concerns have been raised about the accuracy of the nitrate-N soil test in prediction of N needs in the Southern BeetCooperative growing area. This sugar beet production area is located in a more humid area of Minnesota than the Red River production areas. The extra precipitation changes the soil moisture dynamics and thus increases the chances of N losses to deand also possibly an increase in the contribution of N from soil organic matter. Other logistical problems exist because of thesituation. Soil samples from the 2 to 4 foot depths are difficult to collect. Soil can be too wet to stay in the sampling tube whthe soil surface or too wet to get a recognizable and representative sample. This work is investigating the importance of deepsampling at different times in the production year in the prediction of the optimum N fertilizer rate for optimum root yield and

Nitrogen management is paramount for optimum sugar production. Nitrogen sources for sugar beet include fertilizerorganic matter. Factors that influence nitrogen availability are temperature, precipitation, and soil drainage. Of the factors mrate of nitrogen fertilizer applied is the easiest input to management. This has been done through the use of a nitrate soil test.

The effect of previous crop on sugar beet yield and quality can be seen in cooperative statistics. There are many diffthe Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative growing area that have been used as previous crop. Little is known about theprevious crop on nitrogen fertilizer recommendations for sugar beet grown in this area. One observation has been that a fall ntest when the previous crop is soybean is not very useful because the soybean plant utilizes all the nitrate-N in the soil. The nsoybean residue mineralizes much quicker than other crops such as corn. This would make a case for the use of a spring or intest for prediction of N fertilizer needs. Environmental demands may require that no fall N fertilizer application may be madeto the need to know the effect of spring applications of N verses fall application on sugar beet yield and quality.

Objectives:1. Improve the ability to predict more accurately the nitrogen fertilizer needs for optimum sugar beet yield and quality

areas of Minnesota following several different crops.2. Determine the effect of fall verses spring nitrogen fertilizer applications on sugar beet yield and quality.

Materials and Methods:

This was the third year of a multi-year/multi-site study. In the fall of 1999, six sites were established in the SouthernBeet Sugar Cooperative production area. Four of the sites were in the eastern growing area near Bird Island and Hector, Minnthe other two sites were near Gluek and Murdock, Minnesota in the western growing area. The preceding crop was sweet corthe eastern locations while corn was the previous crop at the remaining four sites. The treatments were four replications of facombination of fall and spring application at nitrogen rates of 0, 40, 80, 120, and 160 pounds per acre. Soil samples to a deptwere taken from the 0 N rate plots for nitrate-N during the first week of November 1999 and the last week of April 2000. Sugsamples were taken one or two days before root harvest. These were weighed, subsampled, dried, and analyzed for total nitroThe harvest was done by a plot- sized lifter. Root samples for quality analyses were obtained at harvest and analyzed by the SMinnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative Quality Lab. Following harvest, soil samples for nitrate-N were taken from all plots to a ddepth.

Results and Discussion:

Growing season 2000 started with a dry planting season. Soil sampling to four feet was not a problem. Substantial rlate May and continued until July. August and September were dry and sugar beet growth was slowed.

Fall and spring soil nitrate-N contents are presented in Table 1. At the Murdock and Gluek locations, soil nitrate-N ifoot depth increased substantially from the fall to spring soil sampling dates while the nitrate-N contents in the 2 to 4 foot didAt Hector and Bird Island locations where the previous crop was, the nitrate-N values did not change much from the fall to spsampling times. The soil nitrate-N in the 0 to 2 foot depth increased from the fall to sampling dates at the Hector and Bird Islwhich had sweet corn as a previous crop. The nitrate-N increase at Bird Island also occurred in the 2 to 4 foot depth.

Click forMain Menu

78

SugarValleynitrification more humiden brought to nitrate soil quality.

N andentioned, the

erent crops in effect ofitrate-N soilitrogen in-season soil. This leads

in humid

Minnesotaesota whilen at two ofctorialh of four feetar beet topgen content.outhernepth of four

ains occurred

n the 0 to 2 not change.ringand locations

79

Table 1. Soil nitrate-N to 4 foot in early November 1999 and late April 2000 at six locations.

Soil Nitrate-NLocation Previous Crop Fall Spring 0-2’ 2-4’ 0-2’ 2-4’

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - lb N/A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Murdock corn 35 34 88 32Gluek corn 54 29 98 43Hector corn 53 50 62 42Hector sweet corn 72 69 100 65Bird Island corn 64 62 72 61Bird Island sweet corn 85 46 104 94

The changes in nitrate-N between the fall and spring soil sampling dates are reflected in the fertilizer N recommendations listed inTable 2. These numbers were calculated using the current recommendations for Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative growingarea. At all locations, the recommendations were reduced from fall to spring. Large reductions occurred at the Gluek, Murdock, and BirdIsland sweet corn locations. Small reductions occurred at Hector corn and Bird Island corn. The Hector sweet corn location wasintermediate at 25 pounds N per acre.

Table 2. Soil test N recommendations for six locations using Fall and Spring soil nitrate-N information (150 [(soil test N in 0 to 2 ft depth) + (0.8 X soil nitrate 2-4 ft depth-30)].

Location Previous Crop Recommendation

Fall Spring- - - - - lb N/A - - - - -

Murdock corn 112 60Gluek corn 96 42Hector corn 81 78Hector sweet corn 47 22Bird Island corn 60 53Bird Island sweet corn 52 0

The root yield and quality information for the Murdock location is listed in Table 3. Root yield was maximized with a fallapplication of 80 pound N per acre or a spring application of 40 pounds N per acre. Net sucrose, which the sucrose concentration minusthe loss to molasses, recoverable sucrose per ton, and recoverable sucrose per acre were the greatest at 80 pounds N per acre. The soil testN recommendation was 112 pounds fertilizer N per acre from the fall soil test and 60 pounds N per acre based on the spring soil test.

80

Table 3. Sugar beet root yield, net sucrose concentration, recoverable sucrose per ton, and recoverable sucrose per acre for the Murdocklocation in 2000.

Root Yield Net Sucrose Recoverable Sucrose

N Rate Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Springlb N/A - - - ton/A - - - - - - - % - - - - - - - lb/ton - - - - - - lb/A - - -

0 19.7 21.2 15.2 15.0 305 301 6022 6381 40 22.2 22.2 15.1 15.2 303 304 6728 6765 80 22.7 22.2 15.6 15.8 313 316 7081 7030 120 21.9 22.0 14.4 14.9 288 297 6241 6029 160 21.8 20.3 14.3 14.9 287 297 6241 6029

Statistics

Time NS NS NS NSN Rate NS .008 .008 .19 Linear NS .03 .03 NS Quadratic .06 .04 .04 .03Time x N Rate 10.7 NS NS NS

The root yield response data for the Gluek location is similar to the Murdock location, Table 4. Root yields were greatest with 80pounds N per acre as a fall application and 40 pounds of fertilizer N per acre applied in the spring. The greatest net sucrose concentrationoccurred between the 0 and 40 pounds N per acre application and decreased recoverable sucrose per ton was similar to net sucrose.Recoverable sucrose per acre was greatest with a fall application of 80 pounds N per acre or 40 pounds N per acre from a springapplication. The soil test N recommendation was 96 pounds fertilizer N per acre from the fall soil test and 42 pounds fertilizer N per acrefrom a spring soil test.

Root yield, net sucrose, recoverable sucrose per ton, and recoverable sucrose per acre at the two locations in the eastern growingarea, Hector and Bird Island, which had corn as a previous crop either did not respond to N fertilizer application or the response wasnegative, Tables 5 and 6. The soil tests at these sites did not change significantly from the fall to spring sampling dates. At the Hectorcorn site the recommendation from the fall soil sample was 81 pounds N per acre and 78 pounds N per acre from the spring soil sample.The Bird Island location N recommendations were 60 pounds N per acre from the fall soil sample and 53 pounds N per acre for the springsoil test.

81

Table 4. Sugar beet root yield, net sucrose concentration, recoverable sucrose per ton, and recoverable sucrose per acre for the Glueklocationin 2000.

Root Yield Net Sucrose Recoverable SucroseN Rate Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring

lb N/A - - - ton/A - - - - - - - % - - - - - - - lb/ton - - - - - - lb/A - - -

0 22.4 23.3 16.8 17.1 336 342 7512 7999 40 26.7 27.0 16.8 17.3 335 345 8952 9333 80 27.6 25.1 16.7 17.2 333 344 9184 8624 120 23.8 25.6 16.7 16.8 335 337 7968 8614 160 24.5 20.9 16.4 15.6 327 312 8028 6514

Statistics

Time NS NS NS NSN Rate .003 .03 .04 .0006 Linear NS .008 .01 .07 Quadratic .0002 .06 .06 .0001Time x N Rate .12 NS NS .08

82

Table 5. Sugar beet root yield, net sucrose concentration, recoverable sucrose per ton, and recoverable sucrose per acre for the Hector cornlocation in 2000.



0 22.4 22.9 16.8 16.8 334 336 7481 7673 40 21.2 23.1 16.8 16.7 336 334 7105 7724 80 21.1 21.3 16.6 16.9 332 338 6974 7222 120 20.5 22.0 16.6 16.2 232 325 6800 7153 160 19.4 21.5 16.1 16.2 222 324 6241 6938

Statistics

Time .11 NS NS .13N Rate NS .008 .008 .19 Linear .07 .03 .03 .03 Quadratic NS .04 .04 NSTime x N Rate NS NS NS NS

83

Table 6. Sugar beet root yield, net sucrose concentration, recoverable sucrose per ton, and recoverable sucrose per acre for the Bird Islandcornlocation in 2000.



0 27.5 27.8 16.3 16.7 326 335 8977 9296 40 27.7 30.2 16.7 16.5 334 331 9243 9998 80 27.0 27.8 16.2 16.2 323 325 8733 8994 120 30.1 27.9 15.7 16.3 314 226 9419 9082 160 28.8 28.4 15.8 15.3 317 306 9132 9664

Statistics

Time NS NS NS NSN Rate NS .04 .03 .08 Linear NS .003 .003 .19 Quadratic NS .04 NS NSTime x N Rate .16 NS NS .19

Root yield and recoverable sucrose per acre were the greatest at the 80 pound fertilizer N per acre application at the Hector sweetcorn location, Table 7. Net sucrose and recoverable sucrose per ton were decreased with the application of N fertilizer. The Nrecommendations were 47 pounds per acre from the fall soil sample and 22 pounds per acre for the spring soil sample.

84

Table 7. Sugar beet root yield, net sucrose concentration, recoverable sucrose per ton, and recoverable sucrose per acre for the Hectorsweet corn location in 2000.



0 21.0 20.8 18.1 17.6 312 352 7599 7310 40 24.3 25.2 17.4 17.6 347 352 8429 8866 80 24.9 25.3 17.6 17.5 351 350 8744 8825 120 23.1 22.0 17.9 17.9 351 358 8117 7832 160 24.0 23.9 17.0 17.0 341 341 8143 8156

Statistics

Time NS NS NS NSN Rate .006 .09 .09 .01 Linear .14 .05 .05 NS Quadratic .02 NS NS .008Time x N Rate NS NS NS NS

85

At the Bird Island sweet corn site, root yield, net sucrose, recoverable sucrose per ton, and recoverable sucrose per acre were notsignificantly affected by N application, Table 8. The N recommendation based on the fall soil test was 52 pounds N per acre, while the Nrecommendation based on the spring soil test was 0 pounds N per acre.

Table 8. Sugar beet root yield, net sucrose concentration, recoverable sucrose per ton, and recoverable sucrose per acre for the Bird Islandsweet corn location in 2000.



0 28.0 27.4 15.0 15.7 299 314 8291 8602 40 27.0 29.0 15.9 15.9 317 317 8572 9238 80 29.3 28.3 15.3 15.7 305 314 8956 8915 120 29.0 26.3 16.8 15.5 335 310 9715 8193 160 29.2 27.3 15.5 15.6 310 312 9040 8511

Statistics

Time NS NS NS NSN Rate NS NS NS NS Linear NS NS NS NS Quadratic NS NS NS NSTime x N Rate NS NS NS .12

In summary, there were significant positive responses for recoverable sucrose per acre to N fertilization at three of the sixlocations. The N recommendation based on a fall soil nitrate test over predicted the N needs for optimum recoverable sucrose per acre infive of the six locations (Murdock, Gluek, Hector corn, Bird Island corn, and Bird Island sweet corn) in 2000. The other location (Hectorsweet corn) was 30 pounds N per acre short. The N recommendation based on a spring soil nitrate test over predicted the N needs at twolocations (Hector corn and Bird Island corn), under predicted at two locations (Murdock, and Hector sweet corn), and was correct at twolocations (Gluek and Bird Island sweet corn). The under predictions were approximately 20 pounds N per acre at the Murdock locationand 30 pounds N per acre at the Hector sweet corn location.

Management of Turkey and Swine Manure Derived Nitrogen in a Sugar Beet Cropping System

John A. Lamb and Michael A. Schmitt Dept. of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Mark Bredehoeft, Steve Roehl, and John FischerSouthern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative, Renville, MN.

Justification of Research:

Livestock operations, mainly poultry and swine, are increasing in size and impact in the Southern Minnesota sugar barea. Many sugar beet producers own or have interest in these operations; thus have manure available to use on their fields. Mresearch data concludes that manure has a positive effect on crop production from its effects on soil nutrient availability and sproperties. A concern has been raised about the effect of late season nitrogen mineralized from the manure on sugar beet quaobservations indicate better growth in manured fields. With the large amount of manure available the question has changed frto use manure but when in the sugar beet crop rotation should manure be applied to minimize quality concerns and realize benanswer to this question maybe different depending on the type of manure. Poultry manure has a considerable amount of littercompared to swine manure, thus slowing initial release of poultry manure-N.

Little recent information is available on the effect of manure on sugar beet root yield and quality. Halvorson and Hareported that sucrose concentration and recoverable sugar per acre were reduced with the addition of beef manure while root yincreased. Schmitt et al. (1996) reported that swine manure mineralization occurs several years after application in a legume-Malzer and Graff (1995) reported that leached nitrate-N during second year after an application of turkey manure was greaterfirst year after application. This data suggests that poultry manure has a latter or more extended release of N when compared swine manure.

The implications of the manure-N release are critical, especially to sugar beet growers. Therefore, recommendationsevaluated with sugar beets. This research project has been designed to: 1) measure the effect of manure application effects onroot yield and quality compared to fertilizer N applications; 2) determine the effect of turkey and swine manure mineralizationon sugar beet root yield and quality; and 3) develop management strategies for manure application in a sugar beet rotation.

Materials and Methods:

To address the objectives, two experiments were conducted in 1999 and 2000 at locations near Renville and RaymonMinnesota. Experiment 1 was established after soybean was grown in a soybean-corn-sugar beet rotation at Renville in 1999experiment was established in after corn was grown at the Raymond site in 2000. The treatments listed in Table 1 were desigevaluate the effect of manure applied one cropping year before sugar beet is grown and compare its nitrogen contribution to feapplied the year of sugar beet production. In the corn year (1999 at Renville and 2000 at Raymond) the plots used for the N rin the sugar beet year were fertilized with a recommended rate of fertilizer for optimum corn production. Deep nitrate-N soil taken from the check plots Fall 1998 at Renville and Fall 1999 at Raymond before manure and fertilizer application, April 19and early May 2000 at Raymond before corn planting. Nitrate-N and ammonium-N soil samples were taken monthly to a depfoot to characterize the N dynamics during the growing season. Basal stalk samples for nitrate concentration were taken at pmaturity (black layer). Corn grain was hand harvested from each plot. After corn harvest, soil samples to a 4 foot depth wereanalyzed for residual nitrate-N from every plot.

Click forMain Menu

86

eet growinganure

oil physicallity. Growerom whetherefits. The

in it

rtman (1974)ield wascorn rotation. than in theto liquid

need to be sugar beet differences

d, while thened tortilizer

ate evaluationsamples were99 at Renvilleth of onehysiological taken and

87

Table 1. Treatments for Experiment 1.

TreatmentTreatment number Year 1 (corn) Year 2 (sugar beet )

1 120 lb N/A 0 lb N/A (check)2 120 lb N/A 40 lb N/A3 120 lb N/A 80 lb N/A4 120 lb N/A 120 lb N/A5 120 lb N/A 160 lb N/A6 120 lb N/A 200 lb N/A7 Swine manure 2500 gal/A (228 lb total N/A) Residual8 Swine manure 5000 gal/A (455 lb total N/A) Residual9 Turkey manure 5 tons/A (90 lb total N/A) Residual10 Turkey manure 10 tons/A (180 lb total N/A) Residual11 Check (no fertilizer or manure) Check (no fertilizer or manure)

The second experiment was established at the same location near Renville, Minnesota in 1999 and Raymond in 2000. Theobjective of this experiment was to measure the effects of manure application directly before sugar beet production. The treatmentsinclude fertilizer nitrogen, turkey manure, and swine manure (Table 2). The treatments were applied early November 1998 at the Renvillesite and November 1999 at Raymond. Fertilizer nitrogen was applied in a series of rates to determine the equivalent of the N supplied bymanure. Soil samples were taken to a depth of four feet for nitrate-N from the check plots Fall 1998, and April 1999 at the Renville siteand Fall 1999 and early May 2000 at the Raymond site. This is similar to Experiment 1. Soil samples to one foot for nitrate-N andammonium-N were taken monthly to estimate the mineralization of N from manure during the growing season. Soil samples were takento a depth of 4 foot in all plots at both sites after sugar beet harvest.

Table 2. Treatments for Experiment 2.

Treatment number Treatment

1 0 lb N/A (check)2 40 lb N/A3 80 lb N/A4 120 lb N/A5 160 lb N/A6 200 lb N/A7 Swine manure 2500 gal/A (228 lb total N/A)8 Swine manure 5000 gal/A (455 lb total N/A)9 Turkey manure 2.5 tons/A (45 lb total N/A)10 Turkey manure 5.0 tons/A (90 lb total N/A)

Sugar beet top growth and N content, root yield, and root quality were measured at harvest. Quality samples were taken atharvest and analyzed by the Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative Quality Laboratory.

Results and Discussion:

Experiment 1 - The initial soil nitrate-N measured Fall 1998 was 30 pounds per acre for the 0 to 2 foot depth and 11 pounds per acre forthe 2 to 4 foot depth. Corn grain yield for the Renville site in 1999 is reported in (Table 3). There was a significant increase in grain yieldwhen compared to the check with the application of fertilizer and manure. There were no significant differences in grain yield between thefertilizer treatment and the manure treatments. The only significant difference was between the grain yields for the two rates of swinemanure (155 vs 169 bushels per acre).

Soil ammonium-N and nitrate-N were measured each month in 1999, Table 4. Soil ammonium-N concentrations in the surfacefoot of soil (not shown) were similar for soil from all treatments and at all sampling dates, approximately 40 pounds N per acre. Soilnitrate-N concentrations in the surface foot of soil, did change during the growing season. Nitrate concentrations were greatest at the Junesampling date and decrease to a low value in August. The use of fertilizer and manure increase soil nitrate-N concentrations over thecheck which received no fertilizer or manure. The soil treated with a 120 pounds of fertilizer N per acre had similar nitrate concentrationsto the soil treated with 5000 gallons per acre of liquid swine manure. The soil treated with Turkey manure had the greatest nitrate-Nconcentration in June and the soil treated with 10 tons per acre of turkey manure had elevated nitrate concentration at the Novembersampling date. The first year of this experiment was the set up year to investigate the effects of manure on sugar beet production two yearsafter application. Sugar beet was grown at this site in 2000.

88

Table 3. Corn grain yields at 15.5% moisture or Experiment 1 at Renville in 1999.

Treatment Corn grain yield - - - - bu/A - - - -

Check 126Fertilizer - 120 lb. N/A 158Swine Manure 2500 gallon/A 155Swine Manure 5000 gallon/A 169Turkey Manure 5 tons/A 166Turkey Manure 10 tons/A 167

LSD 0.05 12

Table 4. Soil nitrate-N for top 1 foot during corn year (Experiment 1) at Renville, MN in 1999.

Treatment Fall 98 June July Aug. Sept. Nov.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - lb N/A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Check 0 lb N/A 22 71 45 14 16 15

Fertilizer 120 lb N/A 22 146 72 28 28 32

Swine manure 2500 gal/A 22 109 60 18 20 21Swine manure 5000 gal/A 22 148 85 33 27 33

Turkey manure 5 ton/A 22 177 93 33 37 36Turkey manure 10 ton/A 22 288 176 111 87 136

Sugar beet yield, sucrose concentration, loss to molasses, recoverable sucrose per, and recoverable sucrose per acre for 2000 atthe Renville site are reported in Table 5. The root yield for the treated plots, manure and 120 pounds fertilizer N per acre applied in 1999,were greater than the check plot which was not treated in 1999 or 2000. This reflects the difference in the soil nitrate-N contents betweenthe check treatment and the 120 pounds N per acre fall 1999, 25 verses 48 pounds N per acre in the 0 to 2 foot depth. The use of fertilizerin 2000 did not affect root yield. Swine manure applied at 5000 gallons per acre and Turkey manure applied at 5 and 10 tons per acre fall1998 increased root yields over the 2000 fertilize N treatments and the checks. Recoverable sucrose per acre was affected similar to rootyield by the treatments. Only the use of 200 pounds of fertilizer N per acre reduced sucrose concentration significantly in 2000. Themanure treatments applied fall 1998 did not affect sucrose concentrations. This was unexpected. The lack of reduction in sucroseconcentration could have been caused by the lack of N uptake during the last part of the 2000 growing season. There were dry moisturewhich caused the plant to slow growth during this time. The soil information which is not available at the time of this report may helpdetermine if this occurred.

Table 5. Sugar beet root yield, sucrose, loss to molasses, recoverable sucrose per ton, and recoverable sucrose per acre for Experiment 1 atRenville, MN 2000.

Treatment Root Sucrose Loss to Recoverable1999 2000 Yield Concentration Molasses Sucrose

ton/A - - - - % - - - - - - % - - lb/ton lb/ACheck Check 15.1 17.4 1.05 328 4948

120 lb N/A 0 lb N/A 18.4 17.2 1.07 322 5921120 lb N/A 40 lb N/A 17.1 17.0 1.08 318 5429120 lb N/A 80 lb N/A 18.5 17.1 1.08 320 5927120 lb N/A 120 lb N/A 17.6 16.6 1.11 311 5476120 lb N/A 160 lb N/A 17.9 16.5 1.12 309 5524120 lb N/A 200 lb N/A 18.1 15.7 1.19 290 5276

Swine manure 2500 gal/A 0 lb N/A 17.6 17.2 1.08 321 5643Swine manure 5000 gal/A 0 lb N/A 24.1 18.3 0.99 345 8314

Turkey manure 5 ton/A 0 lb N/A 22.3 18.0 1.01 344 7608

89

Turkey manure 10 ton/A 0 lb N/A 21.9 16.4 1.12 366 6727

LSD0.05 2.4 1.5 0.11 32 1139

Experiment 2 - Renville 1999 site - The objective of this experiment was to determine the effect of manure application the fall before sugarbeet production on sugar beet yield and quality. The soil nitrate-N content was 27 pounds per acre in the 0 to 2 foot depth and 18 poundsper acre in the 2 to 4 foot depth in the fall of 1998 at the Renville site. Root yield was not significantly affected by the nitrogen fertilizerapplications (Table 6). Only the root yields of the 5 ton per acre turkey manure and 5000 gallons per acre swine manure applications weresignificantly greater than the root yield of the check. The loss to molasses for the 5 ton per acre turkey manure application wassignificantly greater than the check. No significant differences occurred for sucrose concentration, recoverable sucrose per ton, andrecoverable sucrose per acre.

Table 6. Root yield, sucrose concentration, loss to molasses, recoverable sucrose per ton, and recoverable sucrose per acre for Experiment 2 at Renville in 1999.

Root Sucrose Loss to RecoverableTreatment Yield Concentration Molasses Sucrose

ton/A % % lb/ton lb/A

Check 23.9 18.3 0.93 348 8301Fertilizer 40 lb N/A 24.9 18.2 1.01 345 8570Fertilizer 80 lb N/A 25.3 18.1 0.94 342 8634Fertilizer 120 lb N/A 25.7 17.5 0.86 332 8546Fertilizer 160 lb N/A 26.1 17.4 0.98 329 8492Fertilizer 200 lb N/A 24.2 17.6 1.03 331 8033

Swine Manure 2500 gal/A 25.3 17.5 1.00 329 8353Swine Manure 5000 gal/A 28.0 17.5 0.94 330 9371Turkey Manure 2.5 ton/A 26.2 17.8 0.93 337 8849Turkey Manure 5.0 ton/A 27.3 17.3 1.10 323 8819

LSD 0.05 2.6 NS 0.10 NS NS

Soil nitrate-N contents in the top 1 foot at Renville in 1999 are reported in Table 7. During the June, and July soil sampling datessoil nitrate-N was greater in the soil’s treated with 160 pounds fertilizer N per acre, 200 pounds fertilizer N per acre, 5000 gallons of liquidswine manure per acre, and 5 tons of turkey manure per acre than the check. By August this difference was not measured. This isdifferent than the soil nitrate information reported for corn in Table 4. Sugar beet roots is very efficient at utilizing nitrate-N from the soiland leaves little nitrate-N in soil compared to corn.

90

Table 7. Soil nitrate-N for top 1 foot during sugar beet year (Experiment 2) at Renville, MN in 1999.

Treatment Fall 98 June July Aug. Sept. Nov.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - lb N/A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Check 0 lb N/A 18 61 34 15 17 16

Fertilizer 40 lb N/A 18 76 40 16 16 22Fertilizer 80 lb N/A 18 90 36 15 19 16Fertilizer 120 lb N/A 18 101 40 14 18 17Fertilizer 160 lb N/A 18 122 64 17 20 18Fertilizer 200 lb N/A 18 126 63 28 19 25

Swine manure 2500 gal/A 18 62 36 13 18 16Swine manure 5000 gal/A 18 132 54 18 21 18

Turkey manure 2.5 ton/A 18 99 37 17 19 20Turkey manure 5.0 ton/A 18 160 74 22 20 19

Experiment 2 - Raymond, Minnesota site in 2000. The soil nitrate-N for this site was 50 pounds per acre in the 0 to 2 foot depth and 25pounds per acre in the 2 to 4 foot depth. The maximum root yield occurred with 120 pounds fertilizer N per acre, 5000 gallons of swinemanure per acre, 2.5 tons turkey manure per acre, and 5 tons turkey manure per acre. The sucrose concentration for the manure treatmentsand the 160 and 200 pounds of fertilizer N per acre treatments were decreased. Recoverable sucrose per acre was the greatest,approximately 10,000 pounds per acre, with the 120 pounds fertilizer N per acre, 5000 gallons of swine manure per acre, 2.5 tons turkeymanure per acre, and 5 tons turkey manure per acre.

Table 9. Root yield, sucrose, loss to molasses, recoverable sucrose per ton, and recoverable sucrose per acre for Experiment 2 atRaymond, MN in 2000.

Root Sucrose Loss to RecoverableTreatment Yield Concentration Molasses Sucrose

Ton/A – - - - % - - - - - - % - - lb/ton lb/A

Check 0 lb N/A 18.5 18.8 0.99 356 6593

Fertilizer 40 lb N/A 24.1 18.9 0.98 359 5632Fertilizer 80 lb N/A 27.5 18.5 1.01 349 9644Fertilizer 120 lb N/A 28.5 18.9 0.99 358 10206Fertilizer 160 lb N/A 26.7 18.4 1.00 348 9300Fertilizer 200 lb N/A 26.0 17.8 1.03 335 8701

Swine manure 2500 gal/A 23.5 18.1 1.02 342 8026Swine manure 5000 gal/A 29.9 18.0 1.02 339 10135

Turkey manure 2.5 ton/A 31.4 18.2 1.02 344 10819Turkey manure 5.0 ton/A 26.4 19.3 0.88 366 9643

LSD0.05 3.4 1.3 0.06 28 1419

The results from the first two years of this study indicate that the use of manure may not be as detrimental to sugar beetproduction was original thought. One concern that is raised is what is the effect of long term use of manure in the sugar beet rotation. Theabove results are from field with not prior manure history. Also the 2000 growing season had a long period during August and Septemberin which the sugar beet plant was under moisture stress and may not have been able to take up the nitrate-N that was mineralized from themanure late in the season.

91

Literature Cited:

Halvorson, A.D., and G.P. Hartman. 1974. Longtime influence of organic and inorganic nitrogen sources and rates on sugarbeet yield andquality. In 1974 Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports p. 77-79.

Malzer, G.L., and T. Graff. 1995. Impact of turkey manure application on corn production and potential water quality concerns Westport,MN 1994. In Field Research in Soil Science 1995. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Misc. Pub. 88-1995. p. 121-125.

Schmitt, M.A., C.C. Sheaffer, and G.W. Randall. 1996. Preplant manure on alfalfa: Residual effects on corn yield and soil nitrate. J. Prod.Agric. 9:395-398.

CERCOSPORA LEAF SPOT CONTROL IN EASTERN NORTH DAKOTA ANDMINNESOTA IN 2000

Mohamed Khan1, Larry Smith2, Mark Bredehoeft3, Steve Roehl4, and John Fischer5

1Extension Sugarbeet Specialist, North Dakota State University / University of Minnesota2Head, Northwest Research and Outreach Center, Crookston, University of Minnesota

3Senior Research Agronomist, Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop., Renville, Minnesota4Research Agronomist, Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop., Renville, Minnesota5Research Technician, Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop., Renville, Minnesota

Cercospora leaf spot, caused by the fungus Cercospora beticola Sacc. is the most serious leaf disease o(Beta vulgaris L.) in the production areas of North Dakota and Minnesota. This disease may cause retonnage and sucrose, and increase impurities. Losses as high as 30 percent in recoverable sucrosecommon under moderate disease conditions. Roots of diseased plants do not store in piles as well healthy plants. Limited tolerance to the triphenyl tin hydroxide (TPTH) fungicides was identified in tRed River Valley and southern Minnesota in 1994. This tolerance has increased in incidence and sevRed River Valley and southern Minnesota. Benzimidazole resistance is present in all production areDakota and Minnesota.

OBJECTIVES:

The research objectives of these trials were to evaluate the efficacy of labeled and experimental fungicides at controlling Cspot. These fungicides were applied alone, in tank mixes, or alternated at various application intervals not only to evaluatalso to evaluate management strategies to prevent or slowdown the buildup of tolerance or resistance to the fungicides. All 2had known TPTH tolerance and benzimidazole resistance.

PROCEDURES:

Research was conducted at Crookston, Breckenridge, Maynard, and Renville, Minnesota. The cultural practices and applicaeach location are in Table 1. At all locations, plots were 11 feet wide (6-22 inches rows) and 35 feet long. The middle four the fungicide applications. The middle two rows of each plot were harvested for yield and quality determinations. The BreCrookston analysis were completed at the American Crystal Sugar Company Quality Tare Laboratory, East Grand Forks, MMinnesota samples were analyzed at the Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative Laboratory, Renville, MN. The expall arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. At Crookston, three replications were analyzedleaf spot severity was rated on the KWS scale of 1 to 9. One indicates there is no disease, a rating of 3 indicates the eeconomic loss level, and a rating of 9 indicates that the plants assessed have only new leaf growth, all earlier leaves being deaeconomic loss.

All sites were planted in April. All sites were affected by Cercospora leaf spot, with initial symptoms occurring around mid J

There were 35 identical fungicide treatments at Maynard and Renville in southern Minnesota, and 30 identical fungicideBreckenridge and Crookston. The fungicides tested in 2000 are listed in Table 2. The application interval for each treatmeis indicated in the tables for the respective sites.

Click forMain Menu

92

f sugarbeetductions in are fairlyas roots ofhe southernerity in theas of North

ercospora leafe control, but000 test sites

tion dates forrows receivedckenridge andN. Southern

eriments were. Cercosporaarly stages ofd, and severe

uly.

treatments atnt at each site

93


The effect of the treatments for Cercospora leaf spot control for the test sites are shown in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6. Please note that sometreatments having TPTH exceeded the labeled amounts to be applied for a given season. Only 15 oz/A of TPTH is allowed per season. ASection 18 label was granted for Eminent 125 SL on sugarbeet for the 2000 cropping season. Another Section 18 label for Eminent 125SL on sugarbeet in North Dakota and Minnesota was requested for the 2001 cropping season. Registration status of all otherexperimental fungicides for the 2001 cropping season is not known at this time.

Crookston:

Cercospora leaf spot progressed slowly after first detection on June 20 until August 28 when a rapid increase occurred and continued untilharvest even though climatic conditions for this increase appeared unfavorable. All the fungicide treatments increased recoverable sucroseper acre and reduced the level of Cercospora leaf spot (Table 3). Of the labeled fungicides Eminent (with a Section 18 label) gaveconsistent control and high recoverable sucrose per acre. The experimental compound, BAS 500, also gave good control if applied at the0.15 lb a.i per acre rate. It should be noted the BAS 500 applied with Agridex at 1% v/v caused leaf necrosis at the first application on July26 and the addition of Agridex was discontinued on subsequent applications. The amount of leaf necrosis increased with increasing ratesof BAS 500.

Breckenridge:

Cercospora leaf spot progressed slowly after it was first detected on July 14. Disease pressure was fairly high during the season with theuntreated check plots having a KWS Cercospora leaf spot rating of 7.9 at harvest (Table 4).

All treatments, except Quadris, Caramba, TPTH, and AgriTin applied in alternation with Eminent, resulted in significantly higherrecoverable sucrose per acre than the untreated check. The most effective treatments were Eminent, Flint alternating with TPTH, and BAS500 alternating with Eminent. There was some phytotoxicity when BAS 500 was applied with Agridex COC in the first and secondapplications, resulting in Agridex COC not being used with BAS 500 in later applications. There was also some phytotoxicity with TPTHand Eminent applied on September 7.

Southern Minnesota:

Maynard:

Cercospora leaf spot damage was moderate resulting in untreated check plots having a 7.0 Cercospora leaf spot rating on the KWS scale atharvest (Table 5). All treatments resulted in significantly higher recoverable sucrose per acre than the untreated check, and the treatmentcomprising of only 40 lbs of additional nitrogen. No phytotoxicity was observed.

AAllll ffuunnggiicciiddee ttrreeaattmmeennttss yyiieellddeedd ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy hhiigghheerr rreeccoovveerraabbllee ssuuccrroossee tthhaann tthhee cchheecckkss.. TThhee bbeesstt ttrreeaattmmeenntt ooff tthhee rreeggiisstteerreedd ccoommppoouunnddsswwaass TTooppssiinn MM ((aatt tthhee lloowweerr rraattee)) ++ PPeennnnccoozzeebb ((AApppp 11)) // PPeennnnccoozzeebb ((AApppp 22,, 44 66,, 88)) // TTPPTTHH ((AApppp 33,, 55,, 77)) wwhhiicchh iinnccrreeaasseedd rreeccoovveerraabblleessuuccrroossee ((llbb//AA aanndd llbb//TT)),, rroooott yyiieelldd,, aanndd ssuuccrroossee ccoonntteenntt bbyy 33448800 llbb//AA,, 3311 llbb//TT,, 1111..99 TT//AA,, aanndd 11..55 %% rreessppeeccttiivveellyy,, wwhheenn ccoommppaarreedd ttoo tthheeuunnttrreeaatteedd cchheecckk.. OOnnee ooff tthhee ttrreeaattmmeennttss rreeccoommmmeennddeedd ttoo ffaarrmmeerrss,, EEmmiinneenntt aalltteerrnnaattiinngg wwiitthh TTPPTTHH,, pprroodduucceedd 44,,225599 llbb//AA ooff rreeccoovveerraabblleessuuccrroossee mmoorree tthhaann tthhee uunnttrreeaatteedd cchheecckk.. TThhee bbeesstt ttrreeaattmmeenntt wwaass tthhee eexxppeerriimmeennttaall ffuunnggiicciiddee BBAASS 550000 ++ MMeetthhooiill.. TThhee aapppplliiccaattiioonn ooff aannaaddddiittiioonnaall 4400 llbb ooff NN22 aatt ccuullttiivvaattiioonn oonn pplloottss ooff oonnee ttrreeaattmmeenntt aanndd oonnee cchheecckk ddiidd nnoott iimmpprroovvee CCeerrccoossppoorraa lleeaaff ssppoott ccoonnttrrooll..

94

Renville:

Cercospora leaf spot damage was moderately high resulting in untreated check plots having a 7.4 Cercospora leafspot rating on the KWS scale at harvest (Table 6). All treatments resulted in significantly higher recoverablesucrose per acre than the untreated check, and the treatment comprising of only 40 lbs of additional nitrogen. Nophytotoxicity was observed.

CCeerrccoossppoorraa lleeaaff ssppoott ddaammaaggee wwaass hhiigghh rreessuullttiinngg iinn uunnttrreeaatteedd cchheecckk pplloottss hhaavviinngg aa 88..44 CCeerrccoossppoorraa lleeaaff ssppoott rraattiinngg oonn tthhee KKWWSS ssccaallee aatthhaarrvveesstt ((TTaabbllee 66)).. AAllll ffuunnggiicciiddee ttrreeaattmmeennttss yyiieellddeedd ssiiggnniiffiiccaannttllyy hhiigghheerr rreeccoovveerraabbllee ssuuccrroossee tthhaann tthhee cchheecckkss.. AAss aatt WWiillllmmaarr,, tthhee bbeessttttrreeaattmmeenntt ooff tthhee rreeggiisstteerreedd ccoommppoouunnddss wwaass TTooppssiinn MM ((aatt tthhee lloowweerr rraattee)) ++ PPeennnnccoozzeebb ((AApppp 11)) // PPeennnnccoozzeebb ((AApppp 22,, 44 66,, 88)) // TTPPTTHH ((AApppp 33,,55,, 77)) wwhhiicchh iinnccrreeaasseedd rreeccoovveerraabbllee ssuuccrroossee ((llbb//AA aanndd llbb//TT)),, rroooott yyiieelldd,, aanndd ssuuccrroossee ccoonntteenntt bbyy 22996655 llbb//AA,, 44 llbb//TT,, 77..44 TT//AA,, aanndd 22..88 %%rreessppeeccttiivveellyy,, wwhheenn ccoommppaarreedd ttoo tthhee uunnttrreeaatteedd cchheecckk.. EEmmiinneenntt aalltteerrnnaattiinngg wwiitthh TTPPTTHH,, pprroodduucceedd 44,,441166 llbb//AA ooff rreeccoovveerraabbllee ssuuccrroossee mmoorreetthhaann tthhee uunnttrreeaatteedd cchheecckk.. TThhee nnoonn--rreeggiisstteerreedd eexxppeerriimmeennttaall ccoommppoouunnddss pprroovviiddeedd tthhee bbeesstt CCeerrccoossppoorraa lleeaaff ssppoott ccoonnttrrooll.. TThhee bbeesstt ttrreeaattmmeennttsswweerree BBAASS 550000 // EEmmiinneenntt,, BBAASS 550000 ++ MMeetthhooiill,, aanndd BBAASS 550000 ++ XX--7777.. TThhee aapppplliiccaattiioonn ooff aann aaddddiittiioonnaall 4400 llbb ooff NN22 aatt ccuullttiivvaattiioonn oonn pplloottss ooffoonnee ttrreeaattmmeenntt aanndd oonnee cchheecckk ddiidd nnoott iimmpprroovvee CCeerrccoossppoorraa lleeaaff ssppoott ccoonnttrrooll..

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Registered Fungicides

1. The 3.75 oz/A TPTH rate should only be used in the northern end of the sugarbeet growing area of North Dakota andMinnesota. For the most effective Cercospora leaf spot control, a 10-day application interval is recommended.

2. The 5.0 oz/A TPTH rate should be used in areas of high TPTH tolerance (Moorhead factory district, Minn-Dak, and SouthernMinnesota) with an application interval of 10 days.

3. Using a single benzimidazole (Topsin M) fungicide application in combination with or alternating with a protectant fungicideprovided the best Cercospora leaf spot control at Crookston. This treatment was also fairly effective at Gluek and Willmar,and least effective at Foxhome. Only one application of a benzimidazole fungicide in combination with a protectantfungicide should be used at the northern end of the sugarbeet growing region in North Dakota and Minnesota.

B. Experimental Fungicides

1. Some experimental fungicides consistently provided better Cercospora leaf spot control than the best currently registeredfungicides. The experimental fungicides that were most effective, alone or in combinations with other experimental orregistered fungicides, include BAS 500 (with the addition of an adjuvant), Eminent, and Stratego. Quadris and RH-7592 alsoshowed some promise at some sites.

C. Fungicide with Section 18 Label

1. The availability of Eminent (since a Section 18 has been granted for 2000) will enhance the ability of growers to controlCercospora leaf spot and better manage fungicide resistance. Alternating Eminent with other classes of fungicides providesbetter disease control and delays the development of fungicide resistance.

95

D. Other Comments

1. The addition of an extra 40 lb/A of N2 above the recommended level at cultivation did not improve Cercospora leaf spotcontrol.

2. The first fungicide application should be made when conditions first favor the disease or at disease onset. If the firstapplication is late, control will be difficult all season.

3. Use the recommended rates of fungicides to control Cercospora leaf spot.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

Special thanks to the Sugarbeet Research and Education Board of Minnesota and North Dakota for partial funding of thisresearch. The assistance of Charles Hotvedt at the American Crystal Quality Tare Laboratory at East Grand Forks is greatlyappreciated. We are grateful to Robert Maack at Foxhome and our other cooperators at Willmar and Gluek for allowing us toconduct research on their farms. Special thanks to Norman Cattanach, Jeff Nielsen and Todd Cymbaluk for their assistancein managing the research sites. Financial support from Elf Atochem, Novartis, BASF, Griffin, Zeneca, and Rohm and Haasis appreciated.

96

Table 1. Cultural Practices And Application Date Information For Cercospora Leaf Spot Trials In 2000

Crookston Breckenridge Maynard RenvillePlanting Date April 24 April 27 April 26 April 26Previous Crop Wheat Wheat Corn CornVariety HM Valley HM Valley Beta 4705 Beta 4705Weed Control Betamix –micro-rate Betamix –micro-rate Betamix –micro-rate Betamix –micro-rate

Betanex – m/rate Betanex – m/rate Betanex – m/rate Betanex – m/rateUpbeet – m/rate Upbeet – m/rate Upbeet – m/rate Upbeet – m/rateStinger – m/rate Stinger – m/rate Stinger – m/rate Stinger – m/ratePoast – m/rate Poast – m/rate Poast – m/rate Poast – m/rateOil – micro-rate Oil – micro-rate Oil – micro-rate Oil – micro-rate

Ammonia AmmoniaHand labor Hand labor Hand labor Hand laborCultivation Cultivation Cultivation Cultivation

Insecticide Counter Counter None NonePlant Population atThinning

35,000 plant/A 35,000 plant/A 35,000 plant/A 35,000 plant/A

Spray ApplicationCrookston Foxhome Willmar Gluek

1st July 26 July 25 July 12 July 122nd August 9 August 8 July 19 July 193rd August 16 August 15 August 2 August 24th August 22 August 22 August 5 August 55th August 30 August 29 August 9 August 96th September 7 September 7 August 16 August 167th August 19 August 198th August 23 August 239th August 29 August 29Spray Volume (gpa) 20.0 20.5 20 20Spray Pressure (psi) 100 110 120 120Rain and/or wet conditions may have occasionally kept application intervals from being exactly correct.Harvest Date September 29 September 26 October 9 October 11

97

Table 2. Fungicides tested in 2000.

Fungicides StatusManzate Registered

Benlate Registered

Penncozeb Registered

Topsin M Registered

Super Tin, Agritin, Triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTH) Registered

Quadris Registered

Flint Registered

Eminent Section 18 granted for 2000

Caramba Experimental

Stratego Experimental

Bas 500 Experimental

RH-7592 Experimental

YF 11393 Experimental

98

Table 3. Cercospora leaf spot control at Crookston in 2000 with registered and experimental fungicides.

Treatment and rate/A App.Interval

CLS* Recoverable Sucrose RootYield

SucroseContent

LTM**

(d) 22-Sep (lb/A) (lb/T) (T/A) (%) (%)

BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i / Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz.………….. 14 1.8 9929 347 28.6 18.4 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz.………….……………………………….. 21 2.7 9878 351 28.2 18.6 1.1BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i / SuperTin 80 WP 5 oz……………… 14 2.2 9791 352 27.8 18.7 1.1Topsin M 70 WSB 0.5 lb + Penncozeb 75DF 2.0 lb (App 1) /Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 2, 4) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)…. 14 3.0 9473 345 27.5 18.4 1.1BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i……………………………………….. 14 1.8 9453 343 27.6 18.3 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz..………….……………………………….. 14 1.8 9319 333 28.0 17.8 1.2Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i…………... 14 2.2 9308 336 27.7 17.9 1.1BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i.………………………………………. 21 3.0 9257 331 28.0 17.7 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 2, 4) /BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i (App 3)………………………………. 14 2.5 9150 340 27.0 18.1 1.1BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.20 lb a.i……………………………………….. 14 2.2 9069 333 27.3 17.8 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Topsin M 70 WSB 0.5 lb +Penncozeb 75DF 2.0 lb (App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)..……. 14 2.8 9057 333 27.0 17.8 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Topsin M 70 WSB 0.5 lb +Penncozeb 75DF 2.0 lb (App 2) / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i (App3)……………………………………………………………… 14 1.8 8978 333 27.0 17.8 1.1Stratego 2.1 EC 10 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz………………………. 14 2.0 8976 341 26.3 17.2 1.1RH-7592 2F 8 oz + COC 1 pt ……………………………………… 14 3.0 8903 339 26.3 18.1 1.2Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1, 4) / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i(App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)….…………………………… 14 3.5 8873 332 26.7 17.7 1.1BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.40 lb a.i……………………………………….. 14 1.7 8864 331 26.8 17.8 1.2Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / YF11393 2.08 SC 0.15 lb a.i(App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)………………………………. 14 3.3 8336 338 26.2 18.1 1.2SuperTin 80 WP 5 oz / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i……………… 14 3.3 8698 335 26.0 18.0 1.2Flint 50 WG 3 oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………………... 14 3.2 8686 337 25.8 18.1 1.2Quadris 2.08 SC 0.15 lb a.i…………………………………………. 14 3.8 8636 331 26.1 17.8 1.2Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Quadris 2.08 SC 0.15 lb a.i(App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)…...………………………….. 14 3.3 8614 333 25.9 17.8 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………… 21/14 3.7 8589 340 25.2 18.1 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………… 14 2.8 8552 337 25.5 18.0 1.1Caramba 90 SL 0.1 lb a.i…………………………………………… 14 4.7 8497 326 26.1 17.5 1.2YF 11393 2.08 EC 0.15 a.i…………………………………………. 14 4.0 8463 329 25.8 17.6 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Benlate 50 WP 0.5 lb +Manzate 75DF 2.0 lb (App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)………. 14 3.0 8347 326 25.6 17.5 1.2TPTH 80 WP 5 oz………………….……………………………….. 14 4.8 8271 333 24.9 17.7 1.1Agri-Tin 80 WP 5 oz / Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz…………………… 14 3.7 8269 330 25.1 17.7 1.2Super Tin 80 WP 5 oz / Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz………………….. 14 3.2 8084 325 24.9 17.5 1.2Check……………………………………………………………….. 7.5 5974 310 19.4 16.7 1.2LSD (P=0.05)CV%

0.8216.32

6234.32

15.82.88

1.43.35

0.782.67

NS9.9

*Cercospora leaf spot measured on KWS scale 1-9 (no leaf spot – dead outer leaves, inner leaves severely damaged, regrowth of new leaves)**LTM: Sugar loss to molasses

99

Table 4. Cercospora leaf spot control at Breckenridge in 2000 with registered and experimental fungicides.

Treatment and rate/A App.Interval

CLS* Recoverable Sucrose RootYield

SucroseContent

LTM**

(d) 22-Sep (lb/A) (lb/T) (T/A) (%) (%)

Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz.………….……………………………….. 14 1.6 10210 335 31.3 18.0 1.4Flint 50 WG 3 oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………………... 14 2.4 10086 350 29.4 18.9 1.4BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i / Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz.………….. 14 1.6 10073 338 29.0 19.0 1.3Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1, 4) / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i(App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)….…………………………… 14 1.8 10002 353 28.2 19.3 1.4BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i……………………………………….. 14 2.3 9994 346 29.5 18.7 1.3BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i.………………………………………. 21 2.6 9922 354 28.6 19.0 1.3Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz..………….……………………………….. 21 2.2 9869 332 30.4 18.0 1.4SuperTin 80 WP 5 oz / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i……………… 14 3.9 9836 344 28.4 18.6 1.4Topsin M 70 WSB 0.5 lb + Penncozeb 75DF 2.0 lb (App 1) /Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 2, 4) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)…. 14 2.9 9800 341 29.4 18.4 1.4Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / YF11393 2.08 SC 0.15 lb a.i(App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)………………………………. 14 2.9 9775 353 25.2 19.0 1.3Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Topsin M 70 WSB 0.5 lb +Penncozeb 75DF 2.0 lb (App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)..……. 14 1.8 9730 351 28.2 19.0 1.3Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Quadris 2.08 SC 0.15 lb a.i(App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)…...………………………….. 14 2.5 9727 335 29.8 18.3 1.5Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Topsin M 70 WSB 0.5 lb +Penncozeb 75DF 2.0 lb (App 2) / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i (App3)……………………………………………………………… 14 2.8 9704 328 28.7 18.7 1.4Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Benlate 50 WP 0.5 lb +Manzate 75DF 2.0 lb (App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)………. 14 2.4 9690 359 27.5 19.2 1.2YF 11393 2.08 EC 0.15 a.i…………………………………………. 14 3.5 9687 338 29.3 18.4 1.5Super Tin 80 WP 5 oz / Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz………………….. 14 2.9 9681 352 28.0 19.0 1.4Stratego 2.1 EC 10 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz………………………. 14 2.7 9654 356 27.6 19.1 1.3Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 2, 4) /BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i (App 3)………………………………. 14 2.3 9651 337 29.3 18.3 1.5Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………… 21/14 3.0 9632 349 28.1 18.8 1.3Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………… 14 3.4 9565 335 29.2 18.2 1.4Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i…………... 14 2.4 9534 338 28.8 18.3 1.4BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i / SuperTin 80 WP 5 oz……………… 14 2.3 9468 340 28.4 18.4 1.5BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.20 lb a.i……………………………………….. 14 1.8 9299 322 30.0 17.6 1.5BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.40 lb a.i……………………………………….. 14 1.7 9286 314 30.3 17.3 1.7RH-7592 2F 8 oz + COC 1 pt ……………………………………… 14 3.3 9272 334 28.5 18.1 1.4Quadris 2.08 SC 0.15 lb a.i…………………………………………. 14 4.5 9073 320 29.1 17.6 1.6Agri-Tin 80 WP 5 oz / Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz…………………… 14 5.1 9008 341 27.1 18.6 1.5Caramba 90 SL 0.1 lb a.i…………………………………………… 14 4.5 8963 329 27.9 17.9 1.4TPTH 80 WP 5 oz………………….……………………………….. 14 5.5 8862 331 27.2 18.1 1.5Check……………………………………………………………….. 7.9 8288 325 26.1 17.9 1.7LSD (P=0.05)CV%

1.330.8

956.2 7.06

34.77.23

2.45.8

1.55.6

0.315.4

*Cercospora leaf spot measured on KWS scale 1-9 (no leaf spot – dead outer leaves, inner leaves severely damaged, regrowth of new leaves)**LTM: Sugar loss to molasses

100

Table 5. Cercospora leaf spot control at Maynard in 2000 with registered and experimental fungicides.

Treatment and rate/AApp.Interval

CLS1 Recoverable Sucrose RootYield

SucroseContent

LTM2

(d) 22-Sep (lb/A) (lb/T) (T/A) (%) (%)

Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz + 10 lb N (28%) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz + 10lb N (28%)……………....………….……………………………….. 14/10 3.8 10007 345 29.0 18.3 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1, 5) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 2, 4) /BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i (App 3)……………………………... 14/10/14 3.5 9486 339 28.0 18.1 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………… 14/10 3.0 9441 342 27.6 18.2 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i…………... 14 2.7 9387 344 27.3 18.3 1.1YF 11393 2.08 EC 0.15 a.i…………………………………………. 14 3.5 9384 337 27.9 18.0 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………… 14 2.8 9369 345 27.2 18.3 1.1BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i / Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz.………….. 14 2.5 9280 346 26.8 18.4 1.1Super Tin 80 WP 5 oz / Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz………………….. 14 3.3 9263 335 27.7 17.9 1.2BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.40 lb a.i……………………………………….. 14 2.8 9230 341 27.0 18.2 1.2Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1, 4) / YF 11393 2.08 EC 0.15 a.i(App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)………………………………. 14 3.2 9131 344 26.5 18.3 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 2, 4) /BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i (App 3)……………………………... 14 2.7 9121 346 26.4 18.3 1.1BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i……………………………………….. 14 3.0 9114 344 26.5 18.3 1.1BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i.………………………………………. 21 3.7 9097 338 26.9 18.0 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Topsin M 70 WSB 0.5 lb +Penncozeb 75DF 2.0 lb (App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)..……. 14 3.8 8980 336 26.7 17.9 1.1BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.20 lb a.i……………………………………….. 14 3.0 8951 342 26.1 18.2 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz..………….……………………………….. 14 2.8 8983 343 26.1 18.2 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Topsin M 70 WSB 0.5 lb +Penncozeb 75DF 2.0 lb (App 2) / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i (App3)……………………………………………………………… 14 3.3 8921 345 25.9 18.4 1.1Flint 50 WG 3 oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………………... 14 3.5 8864 338 26.2 18.0 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Benlate 50 WP 0.5 lb +Manzate 75DF 2.0 lb (App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)………. 14 4.7 8863 332 26.7 17.7 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1, 4) / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i(App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)….…………………………… 14 3.0 8783 345 25.5 18.3 1.1SuperTin 80 WP 5 oz / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i……………… 14 3.0 8747 346 25.3 18.3 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Quadris 2.08 SC 0.15 lb a.i(App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)…...………………………….. 14 3.0 8699 343 25.4 18.2 1.1Quadris 2.08 SC 0.15 lb a.i…………………………………………. 14 4.0 8645 330 26.2 17.6 1.1Stratego 2.1 EC 10 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz………………………. 14 4.5 8634 335 25.7 17.8 1.1BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i / SuperTin 80 WP 5 oz……………… 14 3.0 8547 345 24.8 18.3 1.1Caramba 90 SL 0.1 lb a.i…………………………………………… 14 4.0 8462 336 25.2 17.9 1.1Agri-Tin 80 WP 5 oz / Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz…………………… 14 2.5 8432 346 24.4 18.5 1.2Topsin M 70 WSB 0.5 lb + Penncozeb 75DF 2.0 lb (App 1) /Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 2, 4) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)…. 14 4.5 8412 335 25.1 17.8 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………… 21/14 4.7 8135 328 24.8 17.5 1.1(+ 40 lb N)3 Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz………… 14/10 3.3 8118 340 23.9 18.1 1.1RH-7592 2F 8 oz + COC 1 pt ……………………………………… 14 4.3 7986 331 24.1 17.7 1.1TPTH 80 WP 5 oz………………….……………………………….. 14 6.0 7791 309 25.2 16.5 1.1Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz..………….……………………………….. 21 4.2 7739 326 23.7 17.4 1.1+ 40 lb N3…………………………………………………………… 6.8 6743 271 24.9 14.7 1.2Untreated Check…………………………………………………….. 7.0 6109 265 23.2 14.5 1.2LSD (P=0.05)CV%

0.816.7

915 9.2

112.9

2.68.7

NS2.6

0.17.94

1Cercospora leaf spot measured on KWS scale 1-9 (no leaf spot – dead outer leaves, inner leaves severely damaged, regrowth of new leaves)2LTM: Sugar loss to molasses3Applied on 19 July

101

Table 6. Cercospora leaf spot control at Renville in 2000 with registered and experimental fungicides.

Treatment and rate/AApp.Interval

CLS1 Recoverable Sucrose RootYield

SucroseContent

LTM2

(d) 22-Sep (lb/A) (lb/T) (T/A) (%) (%)

Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………… 14 4.2 9000 356 25.3 18.8 0.99BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i……………………………………….. 14 4.3 8947 366 24.4 19.3 0.98Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i…………... 14 3.8 8865 355 25.0 18.7 0.99Agri-Tin 80 WP 5 oz / Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz…………………… 14 3.5 8852 356 24.8 18.8 0.99Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz..………….……………………………….. 14 4.7 8753 362 24.2 19.1 0.98BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i / Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz.………….. 14 4.2 8561 351 24.4 18.6 0.99Stratego 2.1 EC 10 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz………………………. 14 4.0 8480 353 24.0 18.7 0.99Super Tin 80 WP 5 oz / Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz………………….. 14 4.8 8473 351 24.2 18.5 1.0Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1, 5) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 2, 4) /BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i (App 3)……………………………... 14/10/14 4.7 8457 347 24.4 18.4 1.0Quadris 2.08 SC 0.15 lb a.i…………………………………………. 14 4.8 8361 346 24.1 18.3 1.0Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1, 4) / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i(App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)….…………………………… 14 4.2

8335 350 23.8 18.5 1.0

(+ 40 lb N)3 Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz………… 14/10 4.2 8334 346 24.1 18.3 1.0Flint 50 WG 3 oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………………... 14 4.2 8313 352 23.6 18.6 1.0BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i / SuperTin 80 WP 5 oz……………… 14 4.5 8301 347 23.9 18.4 1.0Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………… 14/10 4.0 8287 356 23.3 18.8 1.0Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz + 10 lb N (28%) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz + 10lb N (28%)……………....………….……………………………….. 14/10 4.7 8168 346 23.7 18.3 1.0Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Topsin M 70 WSB 0.5 lb +Penncozeb 75DF 2.0 lb (App 2) / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i (App3)……………………………………………………………… 14 4.0 8086 346 23.4 18.3 1.0BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i.………………………………………. 21 4.7 8060 359 22.4 18.9 1.0BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.40 lb a.i……………………………………….. 14 3.7 8055 351 22.9 18.5 1.0SuperTin 80 WP 5 oz / BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i……………… 14 4.2 7987 346 23.1 18.3 1.0BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.20 lb a.i……………………………………….. 14 4.7 7963 360 22.1 19.0 1.0Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz……………………… 21/14 5.3 7952 349 22.9 18.4 1.0RH-7592 2F 8 oz + COC 1 pt ……………………………………… 14 4.7 7833 350 22.4 18.5 1.0Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 2, 4) /BAS 500 2.09 EC 0.15 lb a.i (App 3)……………………………... 14 4.0 7758 350 22.2 18.5 1.0YF 11393 2.08 EC 0.15 a.i…………………………………………. 14 4.7 7653 347 22.1 18.3 1.0Caramba 90 SL 0.1 lb a.i…………………………………………… 14 4.5 7629 362 21.1 19.1 1.0Topsin M 70 WSB 0.5 lb + Penncozeb 75DF 2.0 lb (App 1) /Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 2, 4) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)…. 14 4.7 7585 345 22.0 18.2 1.0Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz..………….……………………………….. 21 5.3 7498 360 20.8 19.0 1.0Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Quadris 2.08 SC 0.15 lb a.i(App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)…...………………………….. 14 4.7 7392 340 21.8 18.0 1.0Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Topsin M 70 WSB 0.5 lb +Penncozeb 75DF 2.0 lb (App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)..……. 14 4.8 7328 340 21.6 18.0 1.0Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1,4) / Benlate 50 WP 0.5 lb +Manzate 75DF 2.0 lb (App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)………. 14 5.5 7232 336 21.6 17.8 1.0Eminent 125 SL 13 fl oz (App 1, 4) / YF 11393 2.08 EC 0.15 a.i(App 2) / TPTH 80 WP 5 oz (App 3)………………………………. 14 5.2 6904 332 20.7 17.7 1.0TPTH 80 WP 5 oz………………….……………………………….. 14 6.3 6675 342 19.5 18.1 1.0+ 40 lb N3…………………………………………………………… 7.0 5152 307 16.8 16.5 1.12Untreated Check…………………………………………………….. 7.5 4998 308 16.3 16.5 1.1LSD (P=0.05)CV%

0.916.4

8729.7

133.3

2.38.9

0.63.0

0.022.08

1Cercospora leaf spot measured on KWS scale 1-9 (no leaf spot – dead outer leaves, inner leaves severely damaged, regrowth of new leaves)2LTM: Sugar loss to molasses3Applied on 19 July

2000 LEAF SPOT SUMMARYAVG AVG AVG AVGTMP TMP TMP TMP

CLARA 2 DAY # OF @ > 2 DAY # OF @ > SACRD 2 DAY # OF @ > BIRD 2 DAY # OF @ >DATE CITY TOTAL HRS 87% RH OLIVIA TOTAL HRS 87% RH HEART TOTA

LHRS 87% RH ISLAND TOTAL HRS 87% RH

7/1/00 2 2 7 65 0 0 2 65 Not available 1 1 5 647/2/00 2 4 7 65 3 3 13 68 Not available 3 4 12 68

Click forMain Menu

102

7/3/00 6 8 22 66 4 7 18 66 Not available 5 8 19 667/4/00 6 12 20 71 6 10 22 72 Not available 4 9 16 717/5/00 3 9 3 9 Not available 3 77/6/00 3 6 5 8 17 72 Not available 3 67/7/00 7 10 22 77 7 12 24 76 Not available Not available7/8/00 6 13 14 78 4 11 10 77 Not available Not available7/9/00 6 12 19 75 5 9 16 75 Not available 5 5 18 75

7/10/00 3 9 12 70 3 8 12 70 Not available 3 8 13 697/11/00 6 9 21 70 4 7 18 69 Not available 5 8 19 697/12/00 4 10 16 67 4 8 15 68 Not available 4 9 15 677/13/00 3 7 12 68 3 7 12 68 Not available 3 7 12 677/14/00 2 5 8 65 3 6 12 65 Not available 3 6 12 657/15/00 2 4 8 65 3 6 13 66 Not available 3 6 13 667/16/00 2 4 8 65 3 6 14 69 Not available 3 6 14 697/17/00 0 2 13 59 0 3 12 59 Not available 0 37/18/00 0 0 24 54 0 0 24 55 Not available 0 0 24 547/19/00 0 0 13 56 0 0 14 57 Not available 0 0 15 567/20/00 0 0 13 59 0 0 13 59 0 0 4 60 0 0 12 587/21/00 0 0 13 54 0 0 12 52 Not available 0 0 10 517/22/00 0 0 12 54 0 0 11 53 Not available 0 0 10 517/23/00 0 0 13 60 0 0 11 57 Not available 0 0 10 517/24/00 5 5 21 67 4 4 17 66 5 5 21 67 Not available7/25/00 4 9 17 68 4 8 16 67 4 9 16 67 Not available7/26/00 4 8 15 64 4 8 15 65 4 8 16 65 Not available7/27/00 3 7 12 64 3 7 13 65 3 7 14 65 Not available7/28/00 Not available 3 6 13 65 3 6 13 64 Not available7/29/00 Not available 4 7 14 65 4 7 15 64 Not available7/30/00 Not available 3 7 14 64 3 7 14 63 Not available7/31/00 Not available 3 6 11 64 Not available 3 3 13 648/1/00 Not available 3 6 Not available 3 68/2/00 Not available 0 3 11 60 Not available 0 3 14 618/3/00 Not available 0 0 13 60 Not available 0 0 13 58

103


CLARA 2 DAY # OF @ > 2 DAY # OF @ > SACRD 2 DAY # OF @ > BIRD 2 DAY # OF @ >DATE CITY TOTAL HRS 87% RH OLIVIA TOTAL HRS 87% RH HEART TOTAL HRS 87% RH ISLAND TOTAL HRS 87% RH8/4/00 Not available 3 3 14 67 Not available 4 4 15 678/5/00 Not available 4 7 17 70 Not available 4 8 17 698/6/00 Not available 4 8 15 65 Not available 4 8 15 648/7/00 Not available 3 7 14 64 Not available 0 4 10 608/8/00 Not available 5 8 19 69 Not available Not available8/9/00 0 12 62 3 8 13 63 Not available Not available

8/10/00 4 4 15 66 3 6 14 65 Not available Not available8/11/00 3 7 12 69 3 6 13 68 3 3 13 69 Not available8/12/00 6 9 19 76 4 7 15 75 5 8 17 75 Not available8/13/00 3 9 14 65 3 7 14 67 3 8 14 65 Not available8/14/00 3 6 14 69 3 6 14 69 4 7 16 70 Not available8/15/00 3 6 13 65 3 6 13 65 3 7 12 66 08/16/00 0 3 17 55 0 3 17 57 0 3 19 56 08/17/00 5 5 24 62 4 4 21 61 4 4 21 61 08/18/00 0 5 14 56 0 4 14 56 0 4 14 55 0 0 15 578/19/00 0 0 16 59 0 0 16 59 0 0 16 58 0 0 17 578/20/00 4 4 17 64 4 4 15 64 4 4 18 65 3 3 16 638/21/00 4 8 17 65 5 9 20 67 4 8 15 65 6 9 24 678/22/00 3 7 19 62 3 8 18 63 2 6 18 62 6 12 22 658/23/00 1 4 14 62 3 6 15 63 0 2 14 60 0 6 15 608/24/00 1 2 15 62 1 4 14 62 0 0 8 55 0 0 16 608/25/00 6 7 23 71 6 7 22 71 6 6 22 71 6 6 23 708/26/00 3 9 13 68 3 9 11 70 3 9 14 68 4 10 15 688/27/00 4 7 15 65 3 6 14 65 2 5 16 62 3 7 16 638/28/00 6 10 23 69 6 9 22 69 5 7 19 68 6 9 24 698/29/00 0 6 13 54 0 6 13 55 0 5 10 51 0 6 14 548/30/00 3 3 14 63 4 4 18 68 3 3 14 64 4 4 18 678/31/00 4 7 18 65 6 10 23 69 4 7 15 65 6 10 24 699/1/00 2 6 24 60 4 10 24 61 4 8 24 61 4 10 24 619/2/00 5 7 24 62 6 10 24 65 6 10 24 64 6 10 23 649/3/00 6 11 24 65 5 11 20 65 6 12 22 66 5 11 19 649/4/00 0 6 17 57 0 5 15 57 0 6 15 57 0 5 16 57

104


CLARA 2 DAY # OF @ > 2 DAY # OF @ > SACRD 2 DAY # OF @ > BIRD 2 DAY # OF @ >DATE CITY TOTAL HRS 87% RH OLIVIA TOTAL HRS 87% RH HEART TOTAL HRS 87% RH ISLAND TOTAL HRS 87% RH9/5/00 0 0 10 52 0 0 11 52 0 0 11 52 0 0 13 519/6/00 0 0 4 57 0 0 1 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 559/7/00 0 0 8 61 0 0 7 60 0 0 0 0 9 589/8/00 0 0 10 50 0 0 10 49 0 0 10 46 0 0 10 439/9/00 0 0 1 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 70 1 1 4 68

9/10/00 0 0 6 47 0 0 6 48 0 0 7 46 0 1 7 489/11/00 0 0 9 55 0 0 6 59 0 0 11 52 0 0 10 549/12/00 0 0 9 42 0 0 9 42 0 0 10 43 0 0 9 38

southern minnesota beet sugar cooperative - smbsc · we wish to give thanks to the following...

Documents